PDA

View Full Version : Lord Krishna was shaiva?



Vishahara
08 December 2007, 03:50 AM
Namaste! I`m newcomer here. I want to improve my knowledge about Satya Sanatana Dharma.
In some article i read that Lord Krishna (and Lord Rama also) was Shiva bhakta (pashupata) during his life on the Earth, and its described in Mahabharata. Could somebody tell, in that chapters of Mahabharata i can find this information (if its true)?

Haridas
08 December 2007, 09:41 PM
Namaste.
I, too, am a Vaishnava devoted to Sri Rama. I can't give you specific verse numbers, but I can tell you that it is true that Sri Rama and Sri Krishna were Shiva bhaktas.

Also know that Sri Rama's greatest bhakta, Sri Hanuman, was Lord Shiva incarnate.

The reason why they worship each other and meditate on each other is because neither is greater over the other. In truth, Shiva is an incarnation of Vishnu.

Sriman Narayana (the Supreme Divine, the Absolute Father-Mother) incarnates as Vishnu, and from Vishnu incarnates as Brahma and Shiva. Shiva is just an incarnation of the Supreme Lord Vishnu, and thus Shiva is equal to Vishnu and Rama and Krishna (since all incarnations of the Lord are equal).

This is stated in the Vishnu Purana (though I don't have the exact citations) and also here:

"To those unaware of Your position understanding it the material way do You, by Yourself expanding Your maya, appear for the matters of creation as Me (Brahma), as Yourself (Vishnu) for the purpose of maintenance and as Lord Trinetra (Shiva) in the end." (Bhagavata Purana 10.14.19)

The wise understand that Shiva and Vishnu are One.

sarabhanga
08 December 2007, 10:24 PM
Namaste Vishahara,

The infant kRSNa first settled in gokula (a herd of kine, or a cow-shed), and indra gave him the title of gopendra (gopa indra, the chief herdsman) or govinda (the lord of cattle, the cow-obtainer).

kRSNa lifted the levy of govardhana (cow-increase) as an earthly sign of his presence; his realm is known as goloka (cow-world); and his pastime is sporting with the gopI (the cow-herder’s wife, i.e. prakRti or nature) and her gopyaH (the milkmaids, the natures or qualities of prakRti).

kRSNa innocently compels the dance of tattva and guNa by playing on his own nanda (both a flute of seven inches and enjoyment or happiness). And since nanda (i.e. shiva) is his foster-father, govinda was raised to become pashupati (lord of the herd) himself !

The pańca pANDava are commanded by kRSNa and his pAńcajanya conch.

pAńcajanya means “relating to the five races” and it was taken from the rAkshasa pańcajana (the pańcabhUta ~ “five elemental spirits” or “five classes of being”).

ya is the anantavijaya shAŃkha of yudhiSThira.
vA is the pauNDra shAŃkha of bhIma.
shi is the devadatta shAŃkha of arjuna.
maH is the maNipuSpaka shAŃkha of sahadeva.
na is the sughoSa shAŃkha of nakula.

And the sat sAŃga shAŃkha (the perfect convocation of all being) is namaH shivAya, the pAńcajanya shAŃkha of shrI kRSNa.

atanu
10 December 2007, 07:43 AM
Namaste.
-----
The reason why they worship each other and meditate on each other is because neither is greater over the other. In truth, Shiva is an incarnation of Vishnu.

Sriman Narayana (the Supreme Divine, the Absolute Father-Mother) incarnates as Vishnu, and from Vishnu incarnates as Brahma and Shiva. Shiva is just an incarnation of the Supreme Lord Vishnu, and thus Shiva is equal to Vishnu and Rama and Krishna (since all incarnations of the Lord are equal).
----
The wise understand that Shiva and Vishnu are One.

Namaste Haridas,

While agreeing to your "The wise understand that Shiva and Vishnu are One", since Vedas and Upanishads call both Rudra and Vishnu as Eko and Rudra as Vishnave, I cannot agree to "Sriman Narayana (the Supreme Divine, the Absolute Father-Mother) incarnates as Vishnu, and from Vishnu incarnates as Brahma and Shiva".

Where it is said that Shiva is an incarnation, except in some sectarian purports?? It is an ignorant insult to Param Ishwara.

What is visualised and known in terrestrial or heavenly domains are visualised by the one Seer, who visualised in the beginning the birth of Hirayanagarbha. The intentless indescribable is Rudra-Shiva, and in the plane of Pragnya, when endowed with intention of "Let Me become many", He is Narayana.

RV Book 7 XLVI. Rudra.

---2 He through his lordship thinks on beings of the earth, on heavenly beings through his high imperial sway.


Please refer to the following post for details.

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=2182

Om

bhargavsai
21 January 2008, 01:08 AM
What Atanu is said is exactly right.

Shaivites call That one Supreme God as Siva or Purusha. Whereas Vaishnavites call that Supreme as Narayana. Now there is a difference in the name but not in nature. Even if Amrut is called by different names it does not become different.

Shiva Purana states that Vishnu was incarnated from that One Purusha. In Bhagavatham Siva is incarnated from Narayana. Here we have to consider that Vishnu and Shiva in manifested forms are that one Supreme Lord.

Krishna was Shaiva, Hanuman was Vaishnava.

Don't we know that Shiva and Vishnu are one and the same God in different forms?

Sri Vaishnava
21 January 2008, 04:51 AM
Krishna is an avatar of Vishnu. That is proven by the fact that He showed His conch and discus to Bhishma. And Arjuna, after seeing the Vishvaroopam, saw the 4 handed form of Krishna, His original Narayana form. Krishna also hid the sun during the Arjuna-Jarasandhan encounter with His discus. So He is Vishnu, not Shiva.

Yes, Krishna prayed to Shiva. Because Shiva had requested the Supreme Lord to come in a position at one point where He would pray to Rudra. Since Shiva is a Vaishnavite, the Lord chose to humor Him. This is also indicated in the scriptures.

Thirumangai Azhwar, a famous saint, also had the same experience. The Lord came to the great azhwar and said, 'I want to become your toenail'. Thus, you can see that Lord Vishnu has no problems in lowering Himself for His devotees. Krishna's worship of Shiva can be interpreted in the same way; In fact, it is mentioned so by scripture.

Narayana is supreme. He incarnates as Vishnu because He wants to protect. But He is not interested in destruction or creation, so He manifests as antaryami (Aniruddha & Sankarshana) in 2 living entities, Brahma and Shiva. These two are elevated souls, called Mahadevas.

As usual, these shaivite advaitins are at it again. Atanu not only seeks to put Shiva on a pedestal over Vishnu, but also denigrates Vishnu to the status of a demi-god.

Advaitins and others will say, we accept the vedas, but not this purana, or that. but Sri Vaishnavas can accept it all because their philosophy is complete. Vaishnavas can even accept the tamo, sattva, rajas classification of puranas, but siva advaitins keep harping about it being an interpolation. Ramanujacharya accepted the classification, so obviously we accept it. Siva is the controller of tamo guna, hence his puranas are tamasic.

Siva Advaitam and Saivism are not vedic. Adi Sankara himself was a vaishnavite. He established that Govinda is the absolute Lord and was a devotee of Lakshmi Narasimha. Adi Sankara also quotes oftenly from the Vishnu Purana and establishes Vishnu's supremacy in his commentary on the Sahasranama. Most of his monasteries are founded near Vishnu Temples. That Kanchi Mutt is not an authentic one, and Sankaracharya himself never wrote Saundarya Lahiri or any of that other stuff about demi-gods. Hymns to Lord Ranganatha, Lakshmi Narasimha and Bhaja Govinda are authentic.

Stuff like Shakta, Siva Advaitam or Jesus Advaitam are non-vedic. It is a bitter truth, but of course, Atanuji and the others fail to see it. Adi Sankara is respected as an avatar of Siva by Sri Vaishnavas, and a devotee par excellence. He was a Vaishnava Advaitin, that's all.

'Kesava' indeed does mean Brahma, Vishnu and Siva. But the meaning is that, Siva and Brahma, being Ka and Isha, are born from the limbs of Vishnu. Hence, Kesava does not denote equality to gods, but acknowledges the supremacy of Vishnu.

Advaita is not an incorrect path. It is not the complete truth either. A Personal God is at the helm. But Advaitins can and will attain moksha so long as they follow the standards of Adi Sankara. Unfortunately, Siva Advaitam is being propagated by most people nowadays.

If Atanu would care to read the divine works of Ramanujacharya, known as Yatirajar (King of Sanyasis), you would see that the great saint follows this pattern:

1) First, he will PROVE advaitam from vedas.
2) Then, he will demolish the philosophy by saying, 'it could be interpreted like this or like this, but it really isn't so'.
3) Then, he establishes Vishishtadvaitam and supremacy of Sriman Narayana.

So much for Saiva Advaitam. Ramanujacharya can prove that as well if he wishes, then he will refute the same thing. I challenge Atanu and all these Saiva Advaitins to read the Sri Bhashyam, because I have no problem reading Advaita Acharyas' works. Then the truth can be seen.

If the thread starter is unbiased, accept this - Krishna is Vishnu. There is no-one above Sriman Narayana, who is Vishnu. Worship of anya-devata is discouraged for those aspiring for salvation in the Gita. Siva, despite being a devotee of Vishnu need not be worshipped because unlike a Bhagavata, Shiva is only a Vaishnava. A bitter fact. And I have no pleasure in denigrating any gods or so, I am entirely neutral. If Siva was proven to be supreme I would worship him. But it isn't so.

Rajalakshmi
21 January 2008, 07:25 AM
Namaste Sri Vaishnava.

Have you read all bhAshyas of Sri Shankara? How was it concluded that he was *only* a Vaishnavite?

No doubt, ishTa devatA of Shankara was Krishna - no advaitin will deny it and it is also know that his kula devatA is Krishna. In his Gita bhAshya he has lavished praises on Krishna ( sometimes at the expense of other dieites such as Aditya, brahma and rudra). But you should still know that for advaitins, there is really no special fancy for names and forms - in their devotional moods they may praise their beloved dieites, that is all!

I am stating a few facts from the works of Shankara to dispel your claims.

Usage of vishNu in taittirIya bhAshya:

In the very first passage in the shIxAvaLLii:

shanno mitra.h sha.m varuNa.h | ... | shanno
vishhNururukrama.h | namo brahmaNe | namsaste vaayo |
tvameva pratyaxam brahmaasi |

shankara explains as follows: The various gods are propitiated because they remove the various obstacles encountered while trying attain knowledge. vishNu is called urukrama.h, since he is swift footed. vAyu is called the perceptible brahman rather than the other deities (mitra.h, varuNa.h, vishhNu, etc) because as prANa he is closest to the
self (Atman). Hence vAyu alone is called pratyaxam brahma. Note that shankara has no problems in elevating vAyu as compared to vishNu in this bhAshya.


Usage of Ishvara and vishNu in kena bhAshya:

When discussing the passage "na idam upAsate", shankara makes the following pUrvapaxa argument:

"The supreme brahman cannot be the self. Instead it must be Ishvara, vishNu, prANa or indra, since it is logically not feasible for the Atman to be brahman. Here he lumps together the commonly worshiped deities and distinguishes them from the supreme brahman. This is because the point of view of the ignorant person, who thinks the limiting adjuncts are real, is adopted as the pUrvapaxa. Please note that shiva is identified with Ishvara. Later, when indra is puzzled by the disapperance of the yaxa, uma appears. shankara says vidyA appeared in the form of uma. shankara says that Indra decided to question uma about the yaxa, since she is always with the sarvajna Ishvara . Note again shiva is equated with Ishvara and here he is identified with the supreme brahman. Here the point of view is that of the jnAni, who knows that the limiting adjuncts associated with Ishvara are not real.

So please read all the authentic works of Shankara before coming to definite conclusions.

No doubt Shankara referred to vishNu as Parabrahman. He has however, referred to Shiva as Parabrahman too. Dont search selectively in his works please.

~RL

bhargavsai
21 January 2008, 09:03 AM
In Siva Puran it is given that Lord Shiva appears when Vishnu and Brahma were quarreling as to who is greater. Siva appears as a Maha Linga which has no end and Start. He declares that 'Vishnu and Brahma are just agents who act in his Maya, whereas he is the Supreme Purusha' Do you think Siva Puran is Wrong?

Sri Vaishnava has written something like 'humor'.

Do you think someone can Humor with Siva?

There is a legend that Virabhadra and Vishnu fight with each other when Sati devi commits suicide. And actually it is shown that Virabhadra over powers Vishnu!!

Another legend says that Vishnu worshiping Siva with flowers finds that one flower is less and offers his eye as a flower, then Siva gives the Sudharshan Chakra.

Didn't you read anything of Sankaracharya.

Even Ramakrishna Paramahansa said 'Jiva free is Siva. Siva bound is Jiva'

Know that Siva and Vishnu are equal at least now!!

Sri Vaishnava seems to know everything! How great!! A realized man!!!

How many times have you seen God Mr Sri Vaishnava? You seem to describe him so easily!

Prove to me greatness of VISHNU over SIVA, Show me the greatness not through any Vaishnava Books.

If I go according to Saivism Texts I will say Vishnu is just an aspect of Siva.

If Saivism is not Vedic, then how come great men like Kannappa, Parashu Rama, Markandeya have fllowed it? It is you who is distinguishing as if you have seen everything! At least once did you see really god to be so sure? anyone can tell from books, know that.

bhargavsai
21 January 2008, 09:06 AM
Namaste Sri Vaishnava.

Have you read all bhAshyas of Sri Shankara? How was it concluded that he was *only* a Vaishnavite?

No doubt, ishTa devatA of Shankara was Krishna - no advaitin will deny it and it is also know that his kula devatA is Krishna. In his Gita bhAshya he has lavished praises on Krishna ( sometimes at the expense of other dieites such as Aditya, brahma and rudra). But you should still know that for advaitins, there is really no special fancy for names and forms - in their devotional moods they may praise their beloved dieites, that is all!

I am stating a few facts from the works of Shankara to dispel your claims.

Usage of vishNu in taittirIya bhAshya:

In the very first passage in the shIxAvaLLii:

shanno mitra.h sha.m varuNa.h | ... | shanno
vishhNururukrama.h | namo brahmaNe | namsaste vaayo |
tvameva pratyaxam brahmaasi |

shankara explains as follows: The various gods are propitiated because they remove the various obstacles encountered while trying attain knowledge. vishNu is called urukrama.h, since he is swift footed. vAyu is called the perceptible brahman rather than the other deities (mitra.h, varuNa.h, vishhNu, etc) because as prANa he is closest to the
self (Atman). Hence vAyu alone is called pratyaxam brahma. Note that shankara has no problems in elevating vAyu as compared to vishNu in this bhAshya.


Usage of Ishvara and vishNu in kena bhAshya:

When discussing the passage "na idam upAsate", shankara makes the following pUrvapaxa argument:

"The supreme brahman cannot be the self. Instead it must be Ishvara, vishNu, prANa or indra, since it is logically not feasible for the Atman to be brahman. Here he lumps together the commonly worshiped deities and distinguishes them from the supreme brahman. This is because the point of view of the ignorant person, who thinks the limiting adjuncts are real, is adopted as the pUrvapaxa. Please note that shiva is identified with Ishvara. Later, when indra is puzzled by the disapperance of the yaxa, uma appears. shankara says vidyA appeared in the form of uma. shankara says that Indra decided to question uma about the yaxa, since she is always with the sarvajna Ishvara . Note again shiva is equated with Ishvara and here he is identified with the supreme brahman. Here the point of view is that of the jnAni, who knows that the limiting adjuncts associated with Ishvara are not real.

So please read all the authentic works of Shankara before coming to definite conclusions.

No doubt Shankara referred to vishNu as Parabrahman. He has however, referred to Shiva as Parabrahman too. Dont search selectively in his works please.

~RL

Very well said. How can one be so Ignorant who does not know that Siva and Vishnu are both one and Same Ishvara?

Sri Vaishnava
22 January 2008, 06:51 AM
Namaste Sri Vaishnava.


Have you read all bhAshyas of Sri Shankara? How was it concluded that he was *only* a Vaishnavite?

And do you know that all his mutts are established in vaishnavite shrines? Advaita Vedanta establishes that Brahman is quality-less, but it doesn't say Shiva=Vishnu. In fact, Vishnu's Supremacy was established by Sankaracharya. The works such as Soundarya Lahiri are all later works attributed to Sankara.


No doubt, ishTa devatA of Shankara was Krishna - no advaitin will deny it and it is also know that his kula devatA is Krishna. In his Gita bhAshya he has lavished praises on Krishna ( sometimes at the expense of other dieites such as Aditya, brahma and rudra). But you should still know that for advaitins, there is really no special fancy for names and forms - in their devotional moods they may praise their beloved dieites, that is all!

Sankara said Brahman is nameless. And Krishna was not an 'ishta devta', that concept was never propounded by Sankara. Later people devised it and made it appear like one of Sankara's suggestions.

In the Gita Bhasya, Sankara establishes the uselessness of anya devata. Why would he contradict himself by talking about ishta devta? That stuff is not an authentic preaching of Sankara.

[quote]So please read all the authentic works of Shankara before coming to definite conclusions.

You read this:

According to the present day advaitins, SrI Adi Sankara Bhagavad
pAdAL was a great synthesizer of all these six religions and
that it is well incorporated within the advatia vEdAnta. Anyone
of these specific six dEvatas can thus be considered as
saguNa-brahman for them and intense devotion unto them will make
these persons fit to receive the teachings of mahAvAkyas from a
Guru. But, unbiassed scholars are of the opinion that SrI Adi
Sankara recognized only Lord NArAyana as the SaguNa-Brahman, since
in all of his commentaries on SAstras like Upanishads-Brahma
SUtras-Bhagavad GIta-VishNu SahasranAma, he has equated only Lord
NArAyana to SaguNa-Brahman and all other dEvatas as being
sub-ordinate to Him. According to these scholars, some stotras
etc on other dEvatas as being SaguNa-Brahman, attributed to SrI
Adi Sankara is a later fabrication.

Krishna is supreme. Shiva is a deva, but an elevated one (Mahadeva). Read Gita properly.


Prove to me greatness of VISHNU over SIVA, Show me the greatness not through any Vaishnava Books.

Moronic. The supremacy of Vishnu is established through the Vedas.

1) Ramakrishna is not god-realised, he was just another of those so-called poser neo-advaitins.
2) Shiva Purana is a Tamasic Purana, so no use quoting from it. It does not agree with sastras.
3) Yes, 'Humor' means 'obliging', not as in 'funny'. Learn English. In any case, the sattvik puranas state that Shiva was defeated by the anger of Vishnu alone, rather than combat.

Read my thread in the Hare Krishna forum. The Vedas and Upanishads establish the supremacy of Vishnu/Narayana, not Shiva or Vayu or Varuna.

bhargavsai
22 January 2008, 07:09 AM
Sri Vaishnava I know you are a Vaishnava, I am sorry if I have written anything against your faith.

But I just want to tell you one thing, That which you call Vishnu or Krishna, That which I call Siva, What some call Brahman is that one Supreme Formless God. You call that SatChitAnanda as Vishnu, Shaivas call it Siva, Shaktites call it Adi Para Shakti.


Even Saivic texts call That Supreme Siva, and regard others as his manifestations. You cannot call them wrong, Each have their own version for that one Supreme calling him by different names.

Sri Vaishnava
22 January 2008, 07:18 AM
I have no issues with people worshipping Shiva. But calling Krishna a shaivite, when he has specifically stated in the Gita that He is Supreme, is really a bit much. When I read the Gita, I imagine Lord Krishna's frustration in trying to get his message across - Aham, Mam, I, Me, My. Not Rudra or Varuna.

Read this as well. Sankaracharya was a VAISHNAVITE. A Vaishnava Advaitin. Because:

The argument is simple. There are over a hundred works attributed to Sankara. They contain a wide diversity of views and contradictions, styles, and formats. They are unlikely to all be by him. How does one determine which are likely to be his? Works commented on by writers whom we believe to be his direct disciples form the core of the works we think are actually his. Based on careful study of those works scholars Hacker and Mayeda have devised a set of criteria for determining which of the rest are likely to be his. Those criteria are given above. Based on those criteria out of the more than a hundred ascriptions a handful of texts have been accepted as his.

1. His Brahma-sutra-bhasya

2. His Upadesasahasri

3. His comms on the Brhad-aranyaka, Taittiriya, Kena, Chandogya, Prasna, Yoga-sutras etc.

These have been accepted by just about everyone. Somewhat surprisingly not everyone accepts the Bhagavad-gita-bhasya or the Gaudapada-karika-bhasya as his.

All the works accepted show Vaisnava leanings. None show Saivite or Sakta leanings.

This is where things stand these days. No Saundarya-lahiri or Prapancasara Tantra or even Govindastaka.

Rajalakshmi
22 January 2008, 08:07 AM
Namaste Sri vaishnava,

I showed you the reference to the kena bhAshya of Shankara where Shankara has referred to Lord Shiva as Parabrahman ( umApati in particular in case you raise an objection that shiva is another name of Vishnu). Please read this kena bhAshya of Shankara and let me know if you have any objections to my statements.

Without all that, your reply to me are just emotional sentiments, and I wont reply again until you read the kena bhAshya and raise any specific objections to the points I raised. Thank you.

~RL

Sri Vaishnava
22 January 2008, 08:18 AM
Shiva means auspicious. Indra signifies Aishwarya. Similarly, Uma also cannot be taken at face value. Hence, calling Shiva or Indra Brahman does not mean they are Brahman, but that they are aspects of Brahman. How about taking note of the fact that NO unbiased mordern scholar denies that Sankaracharya identified only Vishnu as Brahman?

EDIT:

The Kena Upanishad (3.12) contains a goddess called Uma - Haimavati. She appears as the shakti, or essential power, of the Supreme Brahman. Her primary role is of a mediator who reveals the knowelge of Brahman to the Vedic trinity of Agni, Vayu and Indra boasting and posturing in the flush of a recent victory over a demon hoard.

'Uma' is again not to be confused with Parvati. All names are common nouns. Sankara stated Shiva is Brahman, meaning brahman is auspicious.

Shankara has a different, and interesting interpretation of Haimavatim. He say it means “one who was as though attired in dress of gold." Hence, Uma does not imply to Parvati alone.

Here is enough proof that Vishnu is supreme:

1) "There was only one Narayana, no Brahma, no Rudra"
2) "From His forehead, the three-eyed person, having Sula is born; the four-faced Brahma is born."
3) "Brahma is born from Narayana, Rudra is born from Narayana"
4) "Brahma is Narayana, Siva is Narayana, Indra is Narayana, The directions are Narayana. All things are Narayana"
5) "There is only one Divine Being - Narayana"
6) "Narayana is the inner soul of all beings,"
7) "He crosses the human bondage of samsara and reaches the Paramapada of Vishnu."
8) "Among the Devas, fire (Agni) is the lowest and Vishnu is the highest:
9) "He created Brahma as before and taught him the Vedas."
10) "From the Brahma's forehead, Rudra was born."
11) "The Universe is Narayana."
12) "Narayana is the supreme Brahman. Narayana is the supreme truth or reality. Narayana is the supreme light. Narayana is the supreme atma or Paramatma. Whatever is in this world, seen or heard, all that is pervaded by Narayana, both within and without. He is Brahma. He is Siva. He is Indra."

Rajalakshmi
22 January 2008, 08:27 AM
Rubbish. umApati is Shiva. Please prove otherwise. Please refer to the bhAshya - then we will talk.

I am not interested in this 'my god can bash up your god' debate. You believe whatever you want. I am only proving that shankara has not said that. But you dont seem to even read what I wrote.

Sri Vaishnava
22 January 2008, 08:32 AM
What you say is rubbish.

The Vedas say that Narayana is Siva, Brahma. But it says that when Siva was born from Brahma, he was NAMED Isvara by Brahma. Just like my name is Narayana, i am named after Brahman out of respect. Hence, I am Narayana, but I am not Brahman.

Similarly, Parameswara, Isvara, maheswara are epithets of Brahman, that Shiva named himself after. Uma can be a very auspicious name, that Parvati chose. THE VEDAS SAY THAT BRAHMA NAMED HIS SON RUDRA AS ISVARA, MAHESWARA, ETC.

If Adi Sankara had referred to Mahadeva Rudra here, he would be contradicting the Vedas where it says 'Narayana created Rudra and Brahma'. Only in the places where this creation is mentioned, is Rudra the Mahadeva.

The Bhasya says 'Umapathy is Brahman' means 'The Brahman is the husband of the lady dressed in Gold'. Which can be Lakshmi or Parvati. But other verses about Narayana prove that it can only be Lakshmi, otherwise contradictions arise. Sankaracharya has intended to call Brahman by Vaishnavite terms.

Similarly, Brahman is Siva, meaning, brahman is auspicious. This is what Sankaracharya meant.

I am also not arguing Vishnu/Shiva stuff. I am saying Adi Sankara NEVER called Mahadeva Rudra or other devas as Brahman in his works. First try to understand the intricacies of Sanskrit grammar and the Vedic usage.

EDIT: The Lakshmi Ashtotram identifies all female demi-god names with Sri Devi as well.

DOUBLE EDIT: I take it that you did not read this properly:

Shankara has a different, and interesting interpretation of Haimavatim. He say it means “one who was as though attired in dress of gold."

Clearly, Sankaracharya took the common meaning. He did not say Uma was Parvati, wife of Mahadeva here. Why would he otherwise say that Uma has a generic meaning? Because he was clearly thinking along vaishnavite lines.

Rajalakshmi
22 January 2008, 09:06 AM
Please read the kena bhAshya instead of pushing your parochial agendas. This is my last reply to you on this topic. It is clear to me you have never read kena upanishad leave alone bhAshyas. It is not umApati alone why Shiva is the referrent there. Vishnu is explictly mentioned in the same line where Ishvara, prANa and indra are compared. That leaves no room for doubt in that context that Ishvara refers to Shiva, who is later called Parabrahman and as umApati. I am amazed that you keep on repeating the same thing without saying that you will refer to the bhAshyas and revert back.

[TOPIC CLOSED]

Lord Shiva does not need your certificate to be called bhagavAn.

Regarding sanskrit and grammar, I am ready for any debate - choose the topic you want. Please note that there is tone of arrogance in your posts - that is not the right way to discuss. Why not be warm and friendly - words like moronic, idiotic, fool etc should not used in a discussion. It spoils the show. When have Vaishnavites ever been polite- you are not going help improve that image either.

Sri Vaishnava
22 January 2008, 09:12 AM
Indra = Aishwarya. It means Brahman has aishwarya.

Prana=Life force. Brahman is the life force.

Shiva = Auspicious. Brahman is auspicious.

Vishnu = All-pervading. Brahman is all-pervading.

So, rather than looking at names of demi-gods, look at it this way. Prana has one guna, but it has no aishwarya or auspiciousness. Shiva is auspicious, but has no aishwarya. But Brahman is all of these. So Brahman is Prana, Indra and Shiva, but Shiva, Indra or Prana alone is not Brahman.

You may argue that Vishnu is also an aspect. But the Vedas say otherwise in no ambiguous terms. "Tad Visnoh Parama Padam". A creation account for Rudra is there, but Vishnu is not mentioned as 'Created' but eternally existing. Narayana is etymologically linked to Vishnu as well. Hence, Vishnu is parabrahman; Not Rudra.

TRY to understand the mysticism of Vedas.

EDIT: The Vedas also do not give a certificate to Shiva, calling him brahman either. Only Rajalakshmi and some saiva advaitins give a certificate to Mahadeva.

DOUBLE EDIT: Ignore all of that. Just consider the topic at hand. Did Adi Sankara refer to Rudra as parabrahman? if so, he would have explicitly mentioned it. But He said Uma meant 'Lady dressed in Gold'. Not Parvati. So how are you coming to a conclusion that he meant Mahadeva Shiva's wife?

Only the Puranas can be considered as descriptions of devas. The Vedas ONLY talk about Brahman and His names. Brahman is Vishnu. And He has many names like Rudra, Siva, Vasudeva, etc. So, any name in Vedas shouldn't be considered along the lines of Puranic devas.

So, this isn't about Mahadeva. Its what you think Adi Sankara said.

satay
22 January 2008, 09:35 AM
Admin Note

Namaskar sriVaishnava,

Please tone down your posts. Personal insults will get you redirected out of this forum very quickly.

Thanks,

sarabhanga
22 January 2008, 09:16 PM
Sri Vaishnava,

What is it that gives vaiSNava prior possession of badarikAshrama and shAradAshrama? It would be more true to say that shrI shaŃkarAcArya established his maThAni in shAkta shrines which had been usurped by bauddha or tAntrika sects. So, in effect, he retrieved them from mAyA (the alter ego of viSNu), and your comment does contain a kernel of truth.

advaita jńAna requires the vision of naranArAyaNa (i.e. hara and hari united as harihare).

shrI shaŃkarAcArya has certainly NOT established the “supremacy” of viSNu; but advaitam itself CANNOT be worshipped, only being known in perfect meditation, and ALL worship MUST be offered to nArAyaNa (as brahmA or viSNu or mahAdeva).

And, shrI kRSNa is not an iSTadevatA?? What complete nonsense!!! It is clear that you understand very little of shaŃkarAcArya’s teaching!

The only moronic statements are coming from you, “Sri Vaishnava”, and the greatest “so called poser” in this thread is you again! Your abusive tone and aggressive approach only emphasizes your ignorance of advaita vedAnta.

Please read and (importantly) understand the many serious threads on this forum before directing us to bogus external sources.

I would very much welcome some reasonable discussion of vaiSNava doctrine and practice, but from the posts of most avowed vaiSNava contributors the only thing they have on their divided minds is denigrating and distorting all yoga and meditation, all gurus other than their own, and especially shrI shaŃkarAcArya, and indeed the true message of advaita vedAnta and shaiva dharma, which is the original vaidika dharma. So in this foolish way they diminish the whole of hindu dharma and only display adharma. I wish it were not so, but on every internet forum it certainly seems to be the case.

atanu
22 January 2008, 11:31 PM
Krishnaaya Vishvaroopaaya Devakinandanaayacha
Shivabhaktaaya Mitraaya Gitaamritaduhe Namah

Om

atanu
22 January 2008, 11:37 PM
Krishnaaya Vishvaroopaaya Devakinandanaayacha
Shivabhaktaaya Mitraaya Gitaamritaduhe Namah

Om

atanu
23 January 2008, 12:29 AM
What you say is rubbish.
---
Shankara has a different, and interesting interpretation of Haimavatim. He say it means “one who was as though attired in dress of gold."


And did you think that Durga was just a housewife? Durga is Vishnu.

What Sarabhanga says about about "divided mind", is the main point. Dear Vaisnava, do you see yourself as two (or more) and each part fighting with the other parts with claims of supremacy? I think so, else wherefrom comes the divided world view again and again?

You may or may not wish to read the following.

What is the 10th Rudraa in you is Prana, which is Prana (Ana - the vital force) everywhere. What is the 11th Rudraa in you is the Atman-the pure Mind, which is "Not Two". But you think it to be separate from all others and this is Avidya that you are seeing.

What you see as the world and the sun and all beings is Vishnu -- the divine Purusha. When you see that world as one light in your own space, you see Durga -- the light of pure consciousness.

Indra is Indra (Maghavat-possessor of Magha) because He first comes to know all these as Himself. He is the illumined Rudraa. All these from Rudra.
-------------------------

Once More.

I intuit that in your consciousness, the person you are when interacting with others in the world is different from the person you are when you are in deep sleep. I think these two persons are fighting in you. You are actually the one person who is Tamas Parasataat -- the person who exists in the deep sleep and also the person who is arguing in the world.

Om

bhargavsai
23 January 2008, 03:24 AM
Mr. SriVaishnava

What Atanu, Sarabanga, RajaLakshmi Garu has given is excellent. We need no more discussion on this topic. It is crystal clear.

Krishna says in Gita that he is supreme. Siva says in Siva Purana, and even in Rig Veda, Siva is sated as unqualified Brahman.

And even Vaishnavites agree that Vishnu is everywhere, and every soul. Even there is no divisibility, then how can Siva be a part of Vishnu? He must be the whole or else whole theory of Advaitha Vedanta will be wrong. Then Siva=Vishnu, As we know that Atman has no beginning then Vishnu has no beginning or Siva has no beginning, hence Siva comes from not Vishnu but he is himself Vishnu. Believe it or not it is true, I know that you are the one who has read Vaishnava texts from Childhood, hence your Ignorance about other faiths speak.

Did you read Astavakra Gita? There Janaka realizing himself as One pure Atman which you call Vishnu, and I call it Siva. Talks that he is that one supreme, who has no end or beginning. He says he created the world. There is no division.


Astavakra Gita:
Truly I am spotless and at peace, the awareness beyond natural causality. All this time I have been afflicted by delusion. 2.1
As I alone give light to this body, so I do to the world. As a result the whole world is mine, or alternatively nothing is. 2.2
So now that I have abandoned the body and everything else, by good fortune my true self becomes apparent. 2.3
Waves, foam, and bubbles do not differ from water. In the same way, all this which has emanated from oneself is no other than oneself

[end of Astavakra Gita]

I have known people practicing ISKCON from 15 years still they are totally Fanatic, when I talk about Soul or Brahman and self realization they will become furious. They say that 'Merging' with Brahman or someone else through Meditation is just useless and has no bliss, where as their duty is to worship only Krishna.

Without knowing Krishna properly they are worshiping Krishna. Why do they not know even simple truths??? Isn't Krishna and Shiva one and the same?


Thank You Atanu, you have given a great explanation. Shiva=Vishnu=Ishwara or the Active God. Brahman=Purusha=Narayana=Unmanifested God.

Jai Sri Krishna.

Rajalakshmi
23 January 2008, 05:30 AM
Sri vaishnava,

Please dont call purANas that dont fit your beliefs tAmasik. Please provide justification for such a theory. Wasn't is the same veda vyAsa who compiled all the purANAs? Why would be compose tAmasik purANAs( which have no use to anybody), and what is the basis for this theory?

~RL

Sri Vaishnava
23 January 2008, 06:10 AM
In the Padma Purana, Shiva tells Parvati that the Puranas glorifying Hari are Sattvik, those glorifying himself (Shiva) are Tamasic, and those glorifying others are Rajasic.

Now, Advaitins claim this to be an interpolation, but since the sattvik puranas are in coherence with the Vedic account of Narayana being supreme, vaishnavas feel that these verses are indeed true. Shiva Purana is tamasic.

Why? Here is the answer:

Lord Vishnu at times, misleads the demons. As Mohini, he deceived the asuras. As Buddha, he preached semi-theism to unbelievers, etc.

Shiva, in the Padma Purana, tells Parvati that certain Asuras were very devoted to Vishnu for material gains, ie, vanquishing the Devas. Lord Vishnu loves pure devotees, but these asuras acquired boons just for destruction. So, the Lord made Shiva incarnate as certain atheists like Durvasa, Gautama, etc. and lead them the wrong way. Furthermore, Veda Vyasa composed certain Tamasic Puranas, which would lead the asuras away from Hari, the truth.

Shiva's magnanimity is shown here. He tells Parvati that he was willing to mislead the demons on behalf of Vishnu. And calls Linga Purana, Shiva Purana, etc. tamasic.

That doesn't mean all shaivites are Tamasic. Tamo means 'Ignorance', ie, not knowing that the sattvik puranas are the voice of the Vedas.

Nor does this mean Mahadeva is tamasic. He takes care of all these tamasic asuras.

The mordern day shaivites are not demons or asuras, don't misunderstand. Those tamasic puranas served their purpose long ago. What remains today is a confusion thanks to all that stuff.

Vaishnavas accept this and do not call it an interpolation. There is no proof that such a thing was an interpolation. Even the Matsya Purana has this classification as Sattvik, Rajasic, Tamasic.

atanu
23 January 2008, 06:20 AM
1) ----

Durga is called Vishnu-Durga -----
--


Namaste Vaisnava,

That is what I call progress.

Ok. Om

Sri Vaishnava
23 January 2008, 06:23 AM
And what about the rest of it? It was Krishna who gave her that name, when Kamsa tried to kill the 6th child of Devaki, which was Durga.

You amuse me though.

How about the fact that Lord Krishna defeated Durga, Skanda and Shiva in battle, upon which they all sought his forgiveness?

EDIT: I haven't answered this yet:


Truly I am spotless and at peace, the awareness beyond natural causality. All this time I have been afflicted by delusion. 2.1
As I alone give light to this body, so I do to the world. As a result the whole world is mine, or alternatively nothing is. 2.2
So now that I have abandoned the body and everything else, by good fortune my true self becomes apparent. 2.3
Waves, foam, and bubbles do not differ from water. In the same way, all this which has emanated from oneself is no other than oneself

I do not deny that. When you are self-realised, you attain the QUALITIES of Brahman. Meaning, you become spiritual, detached, etc. But you cannot create or destroy, or rule others. Hence, you are not Brahman, but a finite portion of Brahman. This is Aham Brahmasmi.

Another thing, about saying 'The world is mine' and all that...there is oneness between them just as there is oneness between the Lord and this world, the demi-gods, demons, etc. It has nothing to do with equality in power, rather, on a spiritual level, everything is one. A realised atman is as auspicious as Brahman, so it is one with Brahman. But it cannot do many things Brahman can do, and does not become the Lord of all.

"A learned person looks at a Brahmana, a Dog, a Dog Eater and an Elephant with an equal eye." ~ Bhagavad Gita.

Only in material ways anything differs. But all is spiritual within, so all is one. All Atman is equal, but is finite, whereas Brahman is infinite.

sarabhanga
23 January 2008, 07:04 AM
Sarabhanga is the one who compared Ramanujacharya with trash like Jesus in another thread. I am not arrogant or belligerent, but that's what started it all.

I have made no such comparison!

On the 8th of May in 2006 (almost 2 years ago), I made a single comment: “Shri Ramanuja introduced the idea of one caste for all, and also ‘baptism’ into Hinduism for outcasts”

That’s what started your all your belligerence? Your arrogant hysteria knows no bounds!!

Sri Vaishnava
23 January 2008, 07:15 AM
Nope. You said that Ramanujacharya meditating in the forest was like the crucifixion of Jesus. I do not like abrahamic concepts in our culture. Ours is a great and pure philosophy, uncontaminated by all the man-made stuff. Whether you are advaitin, shaivite, vaishnavite, dvaitin, it doesn't matter, you are all at a more elevated position than those practicing christianity.

And no, you are mistaken if you think pancha samskaram was borrowed from baptism. The practice of Bhakti and Vaishnavism is older than Christianity. Two proofs: 1) Heliodorus Column, where a greek pledges that he has become a Vaishnava, erected in 113 BC, 2) Megasthenes visit to India in 3rd Century BC, where He acknowledges Vaishnavism. Plus, the Mora Well inscriptions.

Here is the concept of Pancha Samskaram, as detailed by Scriptures:

Brahmasooktha in the Atarva Mahopanishad says "ChakrA in the right shoulder and Sankha in the left shall be worn".
The Pushkala Samhita in Rig VedA says"Oh vishnu ! The learned wear the holy Sankha - Chakra to cross the ocean of samsArA".
Atharva vedA says"By adorning the armour of the Lord, we shall live happily in this world and reach the abode of the Lord."
In the Vishnu Tattvam, the passage narrating about NarakalokA says" Wearing of Sankha and ChakrA informs the relationship with Vishnu. The sentries of YamA are afraid of them. The world will perish if they are belittled. The devotees of Vishnu are never seen in YamA's place due to the glory of Sriman NArAyanA".
BheeshmaparvA of MahAbhArathA says"All shall, as ordained in the PAncharAtrA SAstrA preached by Lord SankarshanA (NArAyanA), wear the chakrA mark. They only are eligible to worship BhagavAn Vishnu (Bhagavad ArAdhanam)"
VarAhapurAnam glorifies the persons wearing the hot seals of the Supreme Lord Sriman NArAyanA on their arms (shoulders). It says that these devotees ultimately reach Sri Vaikuntam.
Garuda PurAnam says that only those who have been affixed with the Sankha and ChakrA are eligible to take part in the ceremony toforefathers. All this Predates Christianity. Ramanujacharya did not 'introduce' Pancha Samskaram as a copy of baptism. It was already in practice. He converted many people into vaishnavite faith and also made this whole concept known to the general masses. It was relatively obscure till then.

Vaishnavism is independent to Christianity. All things considered, Vaishnavism probably influenced Christianity.

sarabhanga
23 January 2008, 08:23 AM
Nope. You said that Ramanujacharya meditating in the forest was like the crucifixion of Jesus. I do not like abrahamic concepts in our culture.

I have not posted any such thing! Please provide a link to the offending post, to remind me of where I went wrong. Otherwise, please take your indignant attitude elsewhere.

And I have NOT suggested that the saMskAra was derived from baptism, but the idea of giving it freely (without regard to varNa) certainly does reflect the christian attitude.

satay
23 January 2008, 08:57 AM
Namaskar,

Isn't humility one of the qualities a vaishnava should have?

Where are the humble vaishnavas hiding?

satay
23 January 2008, 08:59 AM
Admin Note

Namaskar Sri vaishnava,


Nope. You said that Ramanujacharya meditating in the forest was like the crucifixion of Jesus.

Please stop misquoting other members. Since you ignored my polite message to 'tone down your postings' you left me no choice but to officially warn you.

atanu
23 January 2008, 09:03 AM
And what about the rest of it? It was Krishna who gave her that name, when Kamsa tried to kill the 6th child of Devaki, which was Durga.

You amuse me though.

How about the fact that Lord Krishna defeated Durga, Skanda and Shiva in battle, upon which they all sought his forgiveness?

-

Namaste Vaisnava,

Oh, I thought you were talking about Durga who was once my neigbour. And surely, anyone can defeat Shiva, Durga, and Skanda. They are very merciful and Gods of immortality.

Om

Ganeshprasad
23 January 2008, 09:27 AM
Pranam Satay


Namaskar,

Isn't humility one of the qualities a vaishnava should have?

Where are the humble vaishnavas hiding?

Indeed where are they? too busy argueing, if they can't even agree on Krishna or Vishnu as cause of all causes then it would be too much to expect them to even consider Shiva.

but seriously here is what Narsingh Mehta, composed in his most beautiful Bhajan


II Vaishnav Jan to tene II



वैष्णव जन तो


वैष्णव जन तो तेने कहिये जे
पीड़ परायी जाणे रे


पर दुख्खे उपकार करे तोये
मन अभिमान ना आणे रे
वैष्णव जन तो तेने कहिये जे ...


सकळ लोक मान सहुने वंदे
नींदा न करे केनी रे
वाच काछ मन निश्चळ राखे
धन धन जननी तेनी रे
वैष्णव जन तो तेने कहिये जे ...


सम दृष्टी ने तृष्णा त्यागी
पर स्त्री जेने मात रे
जिह्वा थकी असत्य ना बोले
पर धन नव झाली हाथ रे
वैष्णव जन तो तेने कहिये जे ...


मोह माया व्यापे नही जेने
द्रिढ़ वैराग्य जेना मन मान रे
राम नाम सुन ताळी लागी
सकळ तिरथ तेना तन मान रे
वैष्णव जन तो तेने कहिये जे ...


वण लोभी ने कपट- रहित छे
काम क्रोध निवार्या रे
भणे नरसैय्यो तेनुन दर्शन कर्ता
कुळ एकोतेर तारया रे
वैष्णव जन तो तेने कहिये जे ...

Speak only as godlike of the man who feels another's pain
Who shares another's sorrow and pride does disdain
Who regards himself lowliest of the low
Speaks not a word of evil against anyone
Blessed is the mother who gave birth to such a son
Who looks upon everyone as his equal,
Lust he has renounced
Who honors women like he honors his mother
Whose tongue knows not the taste of falsehood
Nor covets another's worldly goods
Who longs not for worldly wealth (or fame)
For he treads the path of renunciation
Ever on his lips is Ram's holy name
All places of pilgrimage are within him
He has conquered greed, is free of deceit, lust and anger
Through him Narsinh has godly vision
And his generation to come will attain salvation.



Jai Shree Krishna

yajvan
23 January 2008, 10:16 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaskar,

Isn't humility one of the qualities a vaishnava should have?
Where are the humble vaishnavas hiding?

Namaste

What makes humility so desirable is the marvelous thing it does to us; it creates in us a capacity for the closest possible intimacy with God ...Monica Baldwin ( not many know of her)

Nuno Matos
23 January 2008, 11:51 AM
Namaste Sri Vaishnava,


" According to Advaita, we are all Brahman. In that sense, Siva is equated to Vishnu. But going by that logic, even you are equated to Vishnu. Yet, Vishnu, or Narayana, still remains the yardstick to which all else is compared. It is such a subtle difference."

I worship the openness of brahma which is the Self/ Brahman every where i.e. it's life and creative power. That worship is done trough sadhana of the self unto himself. So I could never be Shiva wile in sadhana in the same way I could never worship Vishnou or Krishna because would be nonsense creating obstacles. As their conservative nature are non-self from the point of view of novelty i.e. non dual reality. Destruction means transformation. You just can take brahma out of the world!

Om namah shivaya

bhargavsai
23 January 2008, 11:53 AM
You want to prove that which existed before alone is Narayana. Yes, you are right.

Siva is less than Vishnu is what all Vaishnava texts teach, For Shaivas Siva is that Brahman in the beginning.

How can you give one name to that Brahman as Narayana, can't he be called as Siva? From that Brahman came Vishnu, Rudra, Brahma.

YOU SAY THAT ONE DOES NOT GET MOKSHA IF HE WORSHIPS SHIVA, BUT EVEN ASURAS, EVEN ANIMALS(LIKE SRI KALA HASTI) HAVE GOT MOKSHA FROM SHIVA. AND IN VEDAS SHIVA IS MORE SYNONYMOUS AS ISHWARA.

IF YOU ASK A ROAD SIDE PERSON WHO IS ISHWARA HE SAYS SIVA, IF YOU ASK ANY LAYMAN WHO IS UMAPATI EVERYONE SAYS SIVA.

HENCE WE NEED NOT DISCUSS THIS more, If you want to believe that Vishnu is everything and Siva is less or nothing, that his purana is tamasic, then its ok.

God(Narayana) Bless You

Sri Vaishnava
24 January 2008, 04:32 AM
Namaste Vaisnava,

Oh, I thought you were talking about Durga who was once my neigbour. And surely, anyone can defeat Shiva, Durga, and Skanda. They are very merciful and Gods of immortality.

Om

Atanu, you are honestly bad at sarcasm. Read this.

A fierce combat took place between Hari and Shankara; all the regions
shook, scorched by their flaming weapons, and the celestials felt
assured that the end of the universe was at hand. Govinda, with the
weapon of yawning set Shankara a-gape; and then the demons and the
demigods attendant upon Shiva were destroyed on every side; for Hara,
overcome with incessant gaping, sat down in his car, and was unable
longer to contend with Krishna, Whom no acts affect. (viShNu puraaNa
5.33.22-25)

This was the battle between Shiva and Vishnu (Krishna) when Banasura invoked Shiva's boons for protection from Krishna's wrath. Skanda and Durga were defeated as well.

Then, Krishna said this to Shiva:

Since you, Shankara, have given a boon unto Baana, let him live, from
respect to your promises, my discus is arrested: the assurance of
safety granted by you is granted also by me. You are fit to apprehend
that you are not distinct from me. That which I am, thou art; and
that also is this world, with its gods, demons, and mankind. Men
contemplate distinctions, because thy are stupified by ignorance.
(viShNu puraaNa 5.33.46-48)

Now, advaitins and shaivites try to reconcile this by saying, 'look Krishna says he and shiva are one, and that he is restrained by Shiva's boon.' This can be refuted:

1) When Krishna said, 'I won't go beyond your boon', he meant that he respected the authority he himself had given Shiva. After all, Shiva works for Krishna, hence, Krishna is the one who gave shiva the power of boons. Hence, to save Shiva's face, he allowed the boon to stand.

2) 'I and you are one'. By this, he does not mean equal in power. He means that the Self that resides in the body of Shiva is as pure as Brahman, Sri Vishnu Himself. Although the Self is limited in power, it has as much auspicious attributes like bliss, knowledge, etc. as Brahman does. Similarly, the achit and chit entities also descended from Krishna, hence they also possess the inherent sameness. In that sense, all is equal.

Furthermore, Krishna defeated Shiva just now. What is the use of claiming 'I am You'? And Vishnu Purana is sattvik, unlike the tamasic Shiva Purana.

Rajalakshmi
24 January 2008, 04:50 AM
SV,

your classification of purANAs is utterly baseless. Dont you know a purANa cannot itself claim to be sAttvik, tAmasik etc? You should provide shruti basis for such a classification.

Going the purANa way to say 'my god better' is a poor way. Because you can find every contradiction there.

atanu
24 January 2008, 05:49 AM
Atanu, you are honestly bad at sarcasm. Read this.

A fierce combat took place between Hari and Shankara; ----- for Hara,
overcome with incessant gaping, sat down in his car, and was unable
longer to contend with Krishna, Whom no acts affect. (viShNu puraaNa
5.33.22-25)

Then, Krishna said this to Shiva:

--- You are fit to apprehend
that you are not distinct from me. That which I am, thou art; and
that also is this world, with its gods, demons, and mankind. Men
contemplate distinctions, because thy are stupified by ignorance.
(viShNu puraaNa 5.33.46-48)

Now, advaitins and shaivites try to reconcile this by saying, 'look Krishna says he and shiva are one, and that he is restrained by Shiva's boon.' This can be refuted:

----
Furthermore, Krishna defeated Shiva just now. What is the use of claiming 'I am You'? And Vishnu Purana is sattvik, unlike the tamasic Shiva Purana.


Namaste Vaisnava,

Without Shiva one is Shav. So, if you ever happen to defeat Him, you will be dead.

So your exuberance is on account of finding this story? Very good. Why don't you post the next Chapter Story from Vishnu Purana, where Vishnu burns up Varanasi? You will surely find stories where Vishnu has killed Shiva also.

I can post stories from Puranas and other sources that will nullify your stories. These stories mean nothing. Mahesvara is Brahman situated here in Varanasi -- in the place between two eyebrows above nose, at Sahsrarara and in the Heart and as awareness in full body.

Burning up Varanasi does not mean burning up oneself. You naive. It means kindling Shiva in oneself. You should know that not you or me but even Vishnu is not fully aware of what Girisha is.

From your pure Purana:

From SB

31. O Lord Girisa, since the impersonal Brahman effulgence is transcendental to the material modes of goodness, passion and ignorance, the various directors of this material world certainly cannot appreciate it or even know where it is. It is not understandable even to Lord Brahma, Lord Visnu or the King of heaven, Mahendra.

---------------------------
Lord Vishnu did not gain his status without Tapasya of Mahadeva.

From the 13th book of the Mahabharata

SECTION XIV

"Yudhishthira said, 'O son of the River Ganga, thou hast heard all the names of Maheshwara, the Lord of the universe. Do thou tell us, O grandsire, all the names that are applied, O puissant one, unto Him who is called Isa and Sambhu. Do thou tell us all those names that are applied unto Him who is called Vabhru or vast, Him that has the universe for his form, Him that is the illustrious preceptor of all the deities and the Asuras, that is called Swayambhu (self-creating) and that is the cause of the origin and dissolution of the universe. Do thou tell us also of the puissance of Mahadeva.'

"Bhishma said, 'I am quite incompetent to recite the virtues of Mahadeva of highest intelligence. He pervades all things in the universe and yet is not seen anywhere. He is the creator of universal self and the Pragna (knowing) self and he is their master. All the deities, from Brahman to the Pisachas, adore and worship him. He transcends both Prakriti and Purusha. It is of Him that Rishis, conversant with Yoga and possessing a knowledge of the tattwas, think and reflect. He is indestructible and Supreme Brahman.

He is both existent and non-existent. Agitating both Prakriti and Purusha by means of His energy, He created therefrom the universal lord of creatures, viz., Brahma. Who is there that is competent to tell the virtues of that god of gods, that is endued with supreme Intelligence? Man is subject to conception (in the mother's womb), birth, decrepitude, and death. Being such, what man like me is competent to understand Bhava? Only Narayana, O son, that bearer of the discus and the mace, can comprehend Mahadeva. He is without deterioration. He is the foremost of all beings in attributes. He is Vishnu, because of his pervading the universe. He is irresistible. Endued with spiritual vision, He is possessed of supreme Energy.

He sees all things with the eye of Yoga. It is in consequence of the devotion of the high-souled Krishna to the illustrious Rudra whom he gratified. O Bharata, in the retreat of Vadari, by penances, that he has succeeded in pervading the entire universe. O king of kings, it is through Maheswara of celestial vision that Vasudeva has obtained the attribute of universal agreeableness,--an agreeableness that is much greater than what is possessed by all articles included under the name of wealth. 1 For a full thousand years this Madhava underwent the austerest penances and at last succeeded in gratifying the illustrious and boon giving Siva, that Master of all the mobile and the immobile universe. In every new Yuga has Krishna (by such penances) gratified Mahadeva. In every Yuga has Mahadeva been gratified with the great devotion of the high-souled Krishna. How great is the puissance of the high-souled Mahadeva,--that original cause of the universe,--has been seen with his own eyes by Hari who himself transcends all deterioration, on the occasion of his penances in the retreat of Vadari undergone for obtaining a son. 2 I do not, O Bharata, behold any one that is superior to Mahadeva. To expound the names of that god of gods fully and without creating the desire of hearing more only Krishna is competent. This mighty-armed one of Yadu's race is alone competent to tell the attributes of the illustrious Siva.

Verily, O king, only he is able to discourse on the puissance, in its entirety of the Supreme deity?'
---------------------------


Do not clutter this sacred HDF with hatred from Puranas. If you have anything to post from Vedas then only clutter this place.

Om

Sri Vaishnava
24 January 2008, 05:55 AM
O Lord Girisa, since the impersonal Brahman effulgence is transcendental to the material modes of goodness, passion and ignorance, the various directors of this material world certainly cannot appreciate it or even know where it is. It is not understandable even to Lord Brahma, Lord Visnu or the King of heaven, Mahendra.

I request you to post the sanskrit verses for this. Any advaitin interpretation would differ from my school, right? I cannot rely on your english translations.

And in the latter case, your argument is baseless. Isha, maheswara, Rudra are all names of Vishnu. It does not need to apply to only Mahadeva. A sattvik Purana does not contradict itself.

As for the Mahabharata, again I say, there are indeed verses glorifying Shiva. But the reason is because Shiva had acquired a boon from Vishnu that Vishnu would do penance to Mahendra for many yugas.

EDIT: oh, are you quoting Bhishma's rendition of Shiva Sahasranama? Useless. No scholar has considered it authentic. Only vishnu Sahasranama has been quoted.

And Am I cluttering the forums with Vishnu Purana? It is authenticated by even Sankara.

DOUBLE EDIT: Here are some verses from Mahabharata and other authentic scripture. Unsuprisingly, Atanu ignores them all:

1) Varaha Purana: Narayana is the supreme deity. From Him was born the 4-faced Brahma and from Brahma arose Rudra.
2) Mahabharata: when the Jivatma and matter have gone into dissolution, i.e., during the deluge (pralaya), there is only one remaining and He is Lord Narayana.
3) Mahabharata: There is no being in the world that is eternal or permanent, except Vasudeva.
4) Harivamsa: Siva's words to Narayana; "Brahma is called Ka and I am called Isa. We two were born from your limbs. Therefore, you are called Kesava."
5) Mahabharata: Brahma's words to Siva: "I was born by His grace and you from His anger, in one of the earlier creations."
6) Mahabharata: Brahma, Rudra and Indra together with all other devas and rishis, worshipped the divine Narayana, the greatest of Gods.
7) Ramayana: Rudra sacrificed all things in a great yaga called Sarvamedha and then sacrificed himself also mentally.
8) Ramayana: They knew Vishnu is greater .(than Siva).
9) Mahabharata: These two, Brahma and Rudra, who are the greatest among the devas, are born out of the Lord's grace and anger. They perform the duties of creation and destruction, as ordered by Him.
10) Mahabharata: The devas are under the protection of Rudra. Rudra is under the protection of Brahma. Brahma is under my protection. I do not need the protection of anyone, I am the refuge of all.
11) Vishnupurana: Brahma, Daksha, Rudra, all these are among the attributes of Bhagavan. 12) Mahabharata: The words of Brahma to Rudra:
"He (Narayana) is the inner soul of you, of me and all beings. He sees everything, but cannot be seen by anyone or anywhere."
13) Rudra says in Mantra Raja Pada stotra: All beings are the servants of Paramatma. Therefore, I am also your servant and with this knowledge, I bow to you.
14) Mahabharata: There is no one superior to Narayana, the God of the lotus eyes. There is no God superior to Vishnu.
15) Naradapurana: There is no divine being, higher than Kesava.
16) Mahabharata: He (Vishnu) is the king of all kings. He is the Iswara, He is the father. He is the creator,
17) Mahabharata: Those intelligent people do not worship Brahma or Rudra or any other devas, because the fruit of their worship is limited.
18) Mahabharata: Lord Narayana told the devas:
"This Brahma is your father and mother and grandfather. He will give you boons under instructions from me. Rudra, his younger brother, had his origin from my forehead. Rudra will grant boons to beings under instructions from Brahma."
19) Bhagavad Gita: Krishna says: "Those who do sacrifices to other deities, they also do sacrifice only to Me; but not in the proper manner and according to rules." 20) Ramayana: Brahma, the three-eyed Rudra - cannot save a person from being killed in war, by Rama.
21) Mahabharata: Meditating always of the Lord, Brahma, Rudra and others have not yet realised the Lord's nature.
22) Mahabharata: Mahadeva (Rudra) sacrificed -himself in Sarvamedha yaga and became Devadeva.
23) Mahabharata: He, whom Madhusudana sees at the time of birth, becomes Sattvika - If Brahma or Rudra sees him at the time of birth, he is rilled with Rajoguna and Tamoguna (respectively).
24) Mahabharata: Narayana is Parabrahma. Narayana is Paratattva. He is greater than the greatest. There is none greater than Him.
25) Mahabharata: Siva said: I was bora from His (Narayana's) head - He is the one, fit to be worshipped always - By seeing Him, all other devas can also be deemed to be seen. I (Siva) also worship Him (Narayana) always - All of us, devas, reside in His body.

atanu
24 January 2008, 07:12 AM
O Lord Girisa, since the impersonal Brahman effulgence is transcendental to the material modes of goodness, passion and ignorance, the various directors of this material world certainly cannot appreciate it or even know where it is. It is not understandable even to Lord Brahma, Lord Visnu or the King of heaven, Mahendra.

I request you to post the sanskrit verses for this.

Namaste Vaisnava,

Why? Did you cite Sanskrit verses? And did you cite from Pramanas? But we are certainly different from you. I will cite the Sanskrit verse. OK.

But before that be a good friend and do not spoil Sanatana Dharma. Please read with open mind the matter that follows.

Vaisnava I surely think that your being is divided. It is with reason that I solicit you to open read the folloeing with calm mind. You and I are insignificant jivas, even VisvaIshwaram Vishnu worships His own Antaryami Rudra, who is the Antaryami in every Devas Hridaya. He is also your Hridaya. You are simply unfortunate that you hate yourself.

Vedas say that Rudra is the Hridaya and the Grace, in Devas and in Men. We know that Vishnu is Visva Atman so we never demean Him. But are you not naïve that you demean your own Heart and Vishnu’s Heart?

Please read calmly that Rudra is indeed the heart of ALL. Read below what Shri Krishna Himself says about worship of Rudra.

Shri Krishna indeed says:

ahamAtmA hi lokAnAM vishvAnAM pANDunandana
tasmAdAtmAnamevAgre rudraM sampUjayAmyaham
yadyahaM nArchayeyaM vai IshAnaM varadaM shivam
AtmAnaM nArchayetkashchiditi me bhAvitaM manaH

O Son of Pandu, I am, indeed, the Atma, the indweller of this universe and
the worlds. Therefore, I worship Rudra first as my own Self. If
I did not worship Rudra, the indwelling Lord, the bestower of boons, first in such a way,
some would not worship me, at all - this is my opinion.
-----------------------------
Now please read on:


From Yajur Veda. Sata Rudriya

Namo hridayyaya cha niveshpya ya cha
Salutations to Him who is in hridayyaya and in the grace.

Namo vah kirikebhyo devanam hrudayou bhyo
Salutations to you who showers grace and who dwell in the hearts of the Gods.

Reference: Shanti Parva of Mahabharata. Verses 12.328.5 onwards


prakR^itiH sA parA mahyaM rodasI yogadhAriNI
R^itA satyAmarAjayyA lokAnAmAtmasa~nj~nitA
tasmAtsarvAH pravartante sarga pralaya vikriyAH

Everything; creation, destruction and all other changes; arises out of the
Prakriti, she is the most knowledgeable, effulgent, powerful and victorious.
She does all this with my grace and she is known as "AtmA" of the entire
universe.


(Rodasi is VisvaAtman)

kapardI jatilo mundaH shmashAnagR^ihasevakaH
ugravratadharo rudro yogI tripuradAruNaH
dakShakratuharashchaiva bhaga netraharastathA

[Rudra has] braided hair with knot of an ascetic and rest of the head bald.
He dwells in the home of graveyard, steadfast on vigorous penance as a yogi.
He is ferocious to tripurasuras, destroyed daxayaj~na and took away the eyes
of Bhaga.

nArAyaNAtmako GYeyaH pANDaveya yuge yuge

O Arjuna, know that in every yuga, Rudra is 'nArAyaNAtmaka', the indweller in Naraayana.

ahamAtmA hi lokAnAM vishvAnAM pANDunandana
tasmAdAtmAnamevAgre rudraM sampUjayAmyaham
yadyahaM nArchayeyaM vai IshAnaM varadaM shivam
AtmAnaM nArchayetkashchiditi me bhAvitaM manaH

O Son of Pandu, I am, indeed, the Atma, the indweller of this universe and
the worlds. Therefore, I worship Rudra first as my own Self. If
I did not worship Rudra, the indwelling Lord, the bestower of boons, first in such a way, some would not worship me, at all - this is my opinion.


yastaM vetti sa mAM vetti yo.anu taM sa hi mAm anu
rudro nArAyaNashchaiva sattvamekaM dvidhAkR^itam
loke charati kaunteya vyakti sthaM sarvakarmasu

Whoever knows him, knows me. Whoever follows him, follows me. (Though) the
world, in all its actions, worships two Gods Rudra and Narayana, it is
actually One only who is worshipped.

na hi me kenachid deyo varaH pANDavanandana
iti sa~ncintya manasA purANaM vishvamIshvaram
putrArthaM ArAdhitavAn AtmAnaM aham AtmanA

O Son of Pandu, there is, of course, nobody who can grant me boons. Knowing
that well, I worship myself, Who am the vishvamIshvaram,
known as Sarveshvara, for the sake of getting sons.

na hi viShNuH pranamati kasmai chidvibudhAya tu
R^ita AtmAnameveti tato rudraM bhajAmyaham

Indeed Vishnu does not bow to any one and,
for what sake, but for the sake of showing the path to the wise. Therefore,
it is the truth that I worship that Rudra as my Atman.

-------------------------

Om Visvaatman Om Hridaya

Vaisnava, I request you humbly to read and compare what Vedas say and what Lord Krishna says. Be calm. Hari Om.

Sri Vaishnava
24 January 2008, 07:24 AM
Atanu, when I cited something in english, it was a story (Rudra defeated by Krishna). But when you cited something, it was a philosophy. A story can be acurately translated by anyone, but a philosophy needs sanskrit verses.

In any case, I notice you quote from yajur Veda. In the Vedas, wherever Rudra is mentioned as Supreme, its literal meaning is not to be taken, otherwise a lot of contradictions arise. Rudra means 'Roarer', 'Howler', 'Praiseworthy' etc.

You absolutely cannot prove that Mahadeva is supreme from the Vedas. It is supremely established by Vaishnavas that Vishnu/Narayana is supreme. Any quotes of 'Shambhu, Shiva, Rudra' being supreme is just denoting Vishnu and not Mahadeva.

The Vedas describe how the real Mahadeva was born from Narayana, how Mahadeva cried, upon which Brahma gave him names such as Isvara, Maheswara, etc.

Krishna, in the Vishnu Purana itself, after beating Shiva, tells Him, 'I am what you are' in a spiritual sense, not in a powerful sense.

I have also proven that the concept of a no-attribute brahman is illogical in another thread.

ahamAtmA hi lokAnAM vishvAnAM pANDunandana
tasmAdAtmAnamevAgre rudraM sampUjayAmyaham
yadyahaM nArchayeyaM vai IshAnaM varadaM shivam
AtmAnaM nArchayetkashchiditi me bhAvitaM manaH

Atanu, you misinterpreted that verse. Here is the real translation:


O Son of Pandu, I am, indeed, the Atma, the indweller of this universe and
the worlds. Therefore, I worship myself first, even when I worship Rudra. If
I did not worship Rudra, the bestower of boons, in such a way (i.e.,
worshipping the indwelling Lord first), some would not worship me, the
indwelling Lord, at all - this is my opinion.

1) Krishna calls himself the Self. At a spiritual level, the Self is equal to Brahman. Not when it comes to powers.

2) Krishna clarifies why he worships Rudra. It is due to a Boon. He worships Himself.

3) He says that he does not worship the Rudra, but rather, the Sankarshana avatar of Vishnu dwelling within the Mahadeva. It is known to all Vaishnavas that Sankarshana is the one who gives Rudra the powers. All of us have antaryamin, but Rudra differs in that his antaryamin gives him powers.

So, Krishna was giving Rudra, his devotee the satisfaction of asking something from him (Rudra), but at the same time, he was worshipping the indwelling Lord within Rudra, ie, Himself.

Even in Ramayana, Lord Rama worshipped Lord Ranganatha. Both are Vishnu, so the Lord worships Himself often when He descends, because he cannot worship anyone else...no one is greater than Him.

EDIT: The last part, when he says 'Some would not worship Him at all if he didn't worship the indweller within Rudra, pertains to the fact that Krishna had promised to worship Rudra because Rudra had requested of it from the Supreme Lord. If Krishna did not keep his promise, who would have faith in Him? That is what it means. By keeping His word, He is showing us that he will do whatever He says.

-----

I found this. Read it.

Arjuna uvAcha

bhagavanbhUtabhavyesha sarvabhUtasR^igavyaya
lokadhAma jagannAtha lokAnAm abhayaprada
yAni nAmAni te devakIrtitAni maharShibhiH
vedeShu sapurANeShu yAni guhyAni karmabhiH
teShAM niruktaM tvatto.ahaM shrotumichChAmi keshava
na hyanyo vartayennAmnAM niruktaM tvAmR^ite prabho

Addressing the Lord, Arjuna says, O Lord Keshava, the Lord of Past and
future, the Creator of All, the Changeless Being, the Supporter and
indweller of the universe, the Lord of the universe and grantor of refuge to
[all the deserving beings of] the universe, I wish to know the etymology of
your names, which are extolled by [the Devas and] the Maharishis, which are
in the Vedas and the Puranas and are hidden from the [undeserving beings]
and beyond the reach of actions. There does not exist a greater truth or
divine law apart from the true meaning of your names, my Lord.

shrIbhagavAn uvAcha

R^igvede sayajurvede tathaivAtharva sAmasu
purANe sopaniShade tathaiva jyotiShe.arjuna
sA~Nkhye cha yogashAstre cha Ayurvede tathaiva cha
bahUni mama nAmAni kIrtitAni maharShibhiH

The Lord says:

My names are sung by the Maharishis in the RgVeda, YajurVeda, Atharvaveda,
Samaveda, in the purANa, in the Upanishad, in the Jyotish Vidya, in the Sankhya, in the Yogashastra, and in
the Ayurveda.

gaunAni tatra nAmAni karmajAni cha kAni chit
niruktaM karmajAnAM cha shR^iNuShva prayato.anagha
kathyamAnaM mayA tAta tvaM hi me.ardhaM smR^itaH purA

O Destroyer of opponents, in those texts, some names are indicative of my
qualities (Gunas), while some extol my actions. Listen to the etymology of
these names. Earlier, I have told some of these to you.

namo.ati yashase tasmai dehinAM paramAtmane
nArAyaNAya vishvAya nirguNAya guNAtmane
yasya prasAdajo brahmA rudrashcha krodhasambhavaH
yo.asau yonirhi sarvasya sthAvarasya charasya cha
astAdasha guNaM yattatsattvaM sattvavatAM vara

Glories to the extremely famous, the Paramatma Narayana, who is nirguna
(devoid of prakritic attributes) and full of auspicious qualities. Glories
to that Being, out of whose grace was Brahma born and out of whose anger was
Rudra born; Glories to Him who is the origin of all; the moving and
stationery. Glories to Him, who has the eighteen excellent virtues and who
is the true essence and strength of all living beings.

prakR^itiH sA parA mahyaM rodasI yogadhAriNI
R^itA satyAmarAjayyA lokAnAmAtmasa~nj~nitA
tasmAtsarvAH pravartante sarga pralaya vikriyAH

Everything; creation, destruction and all other changes; arises out of the
Prakriti (Lakshmi), Who is the wife of Narayana. [Among all dependent
beings], she is the most knowledgeable, effulgent, powerful and victorious.
She does all this with my grace and she is known as "AtmA" of the entire
universe [after Paramatma].

tato yaGYashcha yaShTA cha purANaH puruSho virAt
aniruddha iti prokto lokAnAM prabhavApyayaH

Thus such Lord is spoken of as yaj~na (the worship) and the worshipper. (God
takes all the fruits of yaj~na and He instigates the worshipper.) He is the
most ancient (anAdi and controller of all) and greatest one. No one is His
Lord and He is unstoppable. He is the creator and annihilator of all the
worlds.

brAhme rAtrikShaye prApte tasya hyamitatejasaH
prasAdAtprAdurabhavatpadmaM padmanibhekShaNa
tatra brahmA samabhavatsa tasyaiva prasAdajaH

In the Brahma muhurta, at the end of the night, due to the mercy of the
extremely brilliant Lord, a lotus emerged from His navel and in that lotus,
Brahma was born, ofcourse, due to His grace.

ahnaH kShaye lalAtAchcha suto devasya vai tathA
krodhAviShTasya sa~njaGYe rudraH saMhAra kArakaH
etau dvau vibudhashreShThau prasAdakrodhajau smR^itau

At the end of the day, the Lord [present as antaryAmi of Brahma *] created
Rudra out of Krodha-guNa, to enable him to be the 'samhAra-kartA'. Thus,
these two 'fine-among-wise', Brahma and Rudra, are known to have been born
out of grace and anger respectively.

*: This interpretation is necessary because in the later sections of
Moxadharma, Brahma addresses Rudra as a son.

tadAdeshita panthAnau sR^iShTi saMhAra kArakau
nimittamAtraM tAvatra sarvaprAni varapradau

Thus, they carry out the instructed tasks of creation and destruction.
However, they, the givers of boons to all the creatures, are just the
agents.

kapardI jatilo mundaH shmashAnagR^ihasevakaH
ugravratadharo rudro yogI tripuradAruNaH
dakShakratuharashchaiva bhaga netraharastathA

[Rudra has] braided hair with knot of an ascetic and rest of the head bald.
He dwells in the home of graveyard, steadfast on vigorous penance as a yogi.
He is ferocious to tripurasuras, destroyed daxayaj~na and took away the eyes
of Bhaga.

nArAyaNAtmako GYeyaH pANDaveya yuge yuge

O Arjuna, know that in every yuga, Rudra is 'nArAyaNAtmaka'. This phrase can
mean: one whose indweller is Narayana, one who is always immersed in
Narayana.

tasminhi pUjyamAne vai devadeve maheshvare
sampUjito bhavetpArtha devo nArAyaNaH prabhuH

It is the Lord, the prabhu, the Narayana *IN* Maheshvara (the worshippable,
the lord of the devas), who is actually worshipped.

ahamAtmA hi lokAnAM vishvAnAM pANDunandana
tasmAdAtmAnamevAgre rudraM sampUjayAmyaham
yadyahaM nArchayeyaM vai IshAnaM varadaM shivam
AtmAnaM nArchayetkashchiditi me bhAvitaM manaH

O Son of Pandu, I am, indeed, the Atma, the indweller of this universe and
the worlds. Therefore, I worship myself first, even when I worship Rudra. If
I did not worship Rudra, the bestower of boons, in such a way (i.e.,
worshipping the indwelling Lord first), some would not worship me, the
indwelling Lord, at all - this is my opinion.

mayA pramANaM hi kR^itaM lokaH samanuvartate
pramAnAni hi pUjyAni tatastaM pUjayAmyaham

Whatever I follow and give due worth as a pramANa, the world follows that.
Such pramANAs have to be duly followed; therefore I follow them.

yastaM vetti sa mAM vetti yo.anu taM sa hi mAm anu
rudro nArAyaNashchaiva sattvamekaM dvidhAkR^itam
loke charati kaunteya vyakti sthaM sarvakarmasu

Whoever knows him, knows Me. Whoever follows him, follows me. (Though) the
world, in all its actions, worships two Gods Rudra and Narayana, it is
actually One only who is worshipped.

na hi me kenachid deyo varaH pANDavanandana
iti sa~ncintya manasA purANaM vishvamIshvaram
putrArthaM ArAdhitavAn AtmAnaM aham AtmanA

O Son of Pandu, there is, of course, nobody who can grant me boons. Knowing
that well, I worhip myself, Who am the beginningless and universal power,
known as Sarveshvara, for the sake of getting sons.

na hi viShNuH pranamati kasmai chidvibudhAya tu
R^ita AtmAnameveti tato rudraM bhajAmyaham

Indeed Vishnu does not bow to any one and [even when He bows to Himself],
for what sake, but for the sake of showing the path to the wise. Therefore,
it is the truth that I worship myself even when I worship Rudra.

sabrahmakAH sarudrAshcha sendrA devAH saharShibhiH
archayanti surashreShThaM devaM nArAyaNaM harim

The Brahmas, the Rudras, the Indras, the Devatas, all the Rishis worship the
best among the Gods, Narayana, Hari.

bhaviShyatAM vartatAM cha bhUtAnAM chaiva bhArata
sarveShAmagraNIrviShNuH sevyaH pUjyashcha nityashaH

Always, of all the past, future and present, it is first, Vishnu who is to
be propitiated and worshipped.

namasva havyadaM viShNuM tathA sharaNadaM nama
varadaM namasva kaunteya havyagavya bhujaM nama

[You] bow to Lord Vishnu, Who grants the material for oblations [so that the
devotee can perform worship]. Bow to One, Who gives refuge to the devotees.
Bow to One, Who gives boons to the devotees. Bow to One, Who consumes all
the oblations and milk, curds, etc.

chaturvidhA mama janA bhaktA evaM hi te shrutam
teShAmekAntinaH shreShThAste chaivAnanya devatAH
ahameva gatisteShAM nirAshIH karma kAriNAm
ye cha shiShTAstrayo bhaktAH phalakAmA hi te matAH
sarve chyavana dharmANaH pratibuddhastu shreShTha bhAk
brahmANaM shiti kanthaM cha yAshchAnyA devatAH smR^itAH
prabuddhavaryAH sevante eSha pArthAnukItritaH
bhaktaM prati visheShaste eSha pArthAnukIrtitaH

There are four kinds of devotees. Among them the best are the "ekanta
bhaktas" like the gods. I am their refuge, who do action interested in
nothing except me. The other three kinds are desirous of fruits of action.
They move on the path of Dharma, enlightened share their knowledge with
others. They worship Brahma, Rudra and other
gods, with their own enlightenment. O Partha, they go unto the god, they
worship.

An open mind is needed for all things. I know the truth. I have considered Shaiva and Advaita, and even Christianity and Buddhism long ago. They didn't work.

atanu
24 January 2008, 07:55 AM
O Lord Girisa, since the impersonal Brahman effulgence is transcendental to the material modes of goodness, passion and ignorance, the various directors of this material world certainly cannot appreciate it or even know where it is. It is not understandable even to Lord Brahma, Lord Visnu or the King of heaven, Mahendra.

I request you to post the sanskrit verses for this. Any advaitin interpretation would differ from my school, right? I cannot rely on your english translations.


Namaste,

As if anyone can rely on a Vaisnava translation. However, here is the sanskrit verse, taken from Shri Prabhupada, (who though indiscriminately alters and removes certain words that do not suit his idea).

8.7.31
na te giri-trākhila-loka-pāla-
viriñca-vaikuṇṭha-surendra-gamyam
jyotiḥ paraḿ yatra rajas tamaś ca
sattvaḿ na yad brahma nirasta-bhedam

na — not; te — of Your Lordship; giri-tra — O King of the mountains; akhila-loka-pāla — all the directors of departments of material activities; viriñca — Lord Brahmā; vaikuṇṭha — Lord Viṣṇu; sura-indra — the King of heaven; gamyam — they can understand; jyotiḥ — effulgence; param — transcendental; yatra — wherein; rajaḥ — the mode of passion; tamaḥ ca — and the mode of ignorance; sattvam — the mode of goodness; na — not; yat brahma — which is impersonal Brahman; nirasta-bhedam — without distinction between demigods and human beings.

TRANSLATION

O Lord Girīśa, since the Brahman effulgence is transcendental to the material modes of goodness, passion and ignorance, the various directors of this material world certainly cannot appreciate it or even know where it is. It is not understandable even to Lord Brahmā, Lord Viṣṇu or the King of heaven, Mahendra.
--------------------------------

And these two verses from Amala Purana should further indicate who is Param Atman.

8.7.24
tvaḿ brahma paramaḿ guhyaḿ
sad-asad-bhāva-bhāvanam
nānā-śaktibhir ābhātas
tvam ātmā jagad-īśvaraḥ

tvam — Your Lordship; brahma —Brahman; paramam — supreme; guhyam — hiddenl; sat-asat-bhāva-bhāvanam — the cause of varieties of creation, its cause and effect; nānā-śaktibhiḥ — with varieties of potencies; ābhātaḥ — manifest; tvam — you are; ātmā — the Atman; jagat-īśvaraḥ — the JagatIsvarah (Vishnu).

TRANSLATION

You are the cause of all causes, the self-effulgent, inconceivable, Param Brahman, hidden. You manifest various potencies in this cosmic manifestation. Jagatisvarah.

8.7.25
tvaḿ śabda-yonir jagad-ādir ātmā
prāṇendriya-dravya-guṇaḥ svabhāvaḥ
kālaḥ kratuḥ satyam ṛtaḿ ca dharmas
tvayy akṣaraḿ yat tri-vṛd-āmananti

tvam — Your Lordship; śabda-yoniḥ — the origin and source of Vedic literature; jagat-ādiḥ — the original cause of material creation; ātmā — the soul; prāṇa — the living force; indriya — the senses; dravya — the material elements; guṇaḥ — the three qualities; sva-bhāvaḥ — material nature; kālaḥ — eternal time; kratuḥ — sacrifice; satyam — truth; ṛtam — truthfulness; ca — and; dharmaḥ — two different types of religion; tvayi — unto you; akṣaram — the original syllable, oḿkāra; yat — that which; tri-vṛt — consisting of the letters a, u and m; āmananti — they say.

TRANSLATION

O lord, you are the original source of Vedic literature. You are the Adiatma, the life force, the senses, the five elements, the three modes and the mahat-tattva. You are eternal time, determination and the two religious systems called truth [satya] and truthfulness [ṛta]. You are the shelter of the syllable OM, which consists of three letters a-u-m.
-------------------------------------

Further the following verse indicates who are these lokpalas:

8.7.29
mukhāni pañcopaniṣadas taveśa
yais triḿśad-aṣṭottara-mantra-vargaḥ
yat tac chivākhyaḿ paramātma-tattvaḿ
deva svayaḿ-jyotir avasthitis te

mukhāni — faces; pañca — five; upaniṣadaḥ — Vedic literatures; tava — your; īśa — O lord; yaiḥ — by which; triḿśat-aṣṭa-uttara-mantra-vargaḥ — in the category of thirty-eight important Vedic mantras; yat — that; tat — as it is; śiva-ākhyam — celebrated by the name Śiva; paramātma-tattvam — which ascertain the truth about Paramātmā; deva — O lord; svayam-jyotiḥ — self-illuminated; avasthitiḥ — situation; te — of Your Lordship.

TRANSLATION

O lord, the five important Vedic mantras are represented by your five faces, from which the thirty-eight most celebrated Vedic mantras have been generated. Your Lordship, being celebrated as Lord Śiva, is self-illuminated. You are the supreme truth, known as Paramātmā.

8.7.23
guṇa-mayyā sva-śaktyāsya
sarga-sthity-apyayān vibho
dhatse yadā sva-dṛg bhūman
brahma-viṣṇu-śivābhidhām

guṇa-mayyā — acting in three modes of activity; sva-śaktyā — by the external energy of Your Lordship; asya — of this material world; sarga-sthiti-apyayān — creation, maintenance and annihilation; vibho — O lord; dhatse — you execute; yadā — when; sva-dṛk — you manifest yourself; bhūman — O great one; brahma-viṣṇu-śiva-abhidhām — as Lord Brahmā, Lord Viṣṇu or Lord Śiva.

TRANSLATION

O lord, you are self-effulgent and supreme. You create this material world by your personal energy, and you assume the names Brahmā, Viṣṇu and Maheśvara when you act in creation, maintenance and annihilation.


Om Namah Shivaya

(So dear friend, when you think you defeated Him badly, actually you declared yourself Dead. You are naive and driven by ego only).

bhargavsai
24 January 2008, 08:01 AM
Swami Vivekananda said this story:

There is an old story of a man who was a worshipper of Shiva.
There are sects in our country who worship God as Shiva, and others who worship Him as Vishnu.
This man was a great worshipper of Shiva, and to that he added a tremendous hatred for all worshippers of Vishnu, and would not hear the name of Vishnu pronounced.
There are a great number of worshippers of Vishnu in India, and he could not avoid hearing the name. So he bored two holes in his ears, and tied two little bells on to them, and whenever a man mentioned the name of Vishnu, he moved his head, and rang the bells and that prevented his hearing the noise.
But Shiva told him in a dream, "What a fool you are! I am Vishnu, and I am Shiva; they are not different, only in name; there are not two Gods".

But this man said, "I don't care I will have nothing to do with this Vishnu business".

He had a little statue of Shiva, and made it very nice, built an altar for it. One day he bought some beautiful incense and went home to light some of the incense for his God. While the fumes of his incense were rising in the air he found that the image was divided into two : one half remained Shiva, and the other half was Vishnu.
Then the man jumped up and put his finger under the nostril of Vishnu so that not a particle of the smell could get there.

Then Shiva became disgusted, and the man became a demon. He is the father of all fanatics, the "bell-eared" demon. He is respected by the boys of India, and they worship him. It is a very peculiar kind of worship. They make a clay image, and worship him with all sorts of horrible smelling flowers. There are some flowers in the forests in India which have a most pestilential smell. They worship him with these, and then take big sticks and beat the image. He is the father of all fanatics, who hate all other gods except their own.

This is the only danger in this Nishta Bhakti, becoming this fanatical demon. The world gets full of them. It is very easy to hate; the generality of mankind get so weak that in order to love one they must hate another; they must take the energy out of one point in order to put it into another. A man loves one woman, and then loves another, and to love the other, he has to hate the first. So with women. This characteristic is in every part of our nature, and so in our religion.
The ordinary, undeveloped weak brain of mankind cannot love one without hating another. This very [characteristic] becomes fanaticism in religion. Loving their own ideal is synonymous with hating every other idea. This should be avoided, and at the same time the other danger should be avoided. We must not fritter away all our energies. Religion becomes a nothing with us; just hearing lectures. These are the two dangers.

atanu
24 January 2008, 08:03 AM
ahamAtmA hi lokAnAM vishvAnAM pANDunandana
tasmAdAtmAnamevAgre rudraM sampUjayAmyaham
yadyahaM nArchayeyaM vai IshAnaM varadaM shivam
AtmAnaM nArchayetkashchiditi me bhAvitaM manaH

Atanu, you misinterpreted that verse. Here is the real translation:

O Son of Pandu, I am, indeed, the Atma, the indweller of this universe and the worlds. Therefore, I worship myself first, even when I worship Rudra. If I did not worship Rudra, the bestower of boons, in such a way (i.e.,
worshipping the indwelling Lord first), some would not worship me, the
indwelling Lord, at all - this is my opinion.

Namaste Sarvajnani,

What does your correct translation tell you?

As much as you distort, it comes out as clear that VisvaAtman Krishna worships Rudra, His own Self. And Amala Purana cited above says that Sadasiva is Visva Atman as well.

tasmAdAtmAnamevAgre rudraM sampUjayAmyaham

It does mean: Therefore, I worship Rudra first as my own Self.

And that matches well with Yajur Veda:

From Yajur Veda. Sata Rudriya

Namo hridayyaya cha niveshpya ya cha
Salutations to Him who is in hridayyaya and in the grace.

Namo vah kirikebhyo devanam hrudayou bhyo
Salutations to you who showers grace and who dwell in the hearts of the Gods.
------------------------------

Please throw away your blinds and be graceful.

yastaM vetti sa mAM vetti yo.anu taM sa hi mAm anu
rudro nArAyaNashchaiva sattvamekaM dvidhAkR^itam
loke charati kaunteya vyakti sthaM sarvakarmasu

Whoever knows him, knows me. Whoever follows him, follows me. (Though) the
world, in all its actions, worships two Gods Rudra and Narayana, it is
actually One only who is worshipped.


By not listening to Shri Krishna you reveal your insubordination to Krishna and your attachment to your own Ego.



Om

satay
24 January 2008, 08:50 AM
Admin Note

Thread closed for review.