Did Shiva worship Krishna or Krishna worship Shiva

[adi]

I used to be a Muslim but I went to India a few years ago and for some reason I was drawn to Shiva, I left Islam and now am devout follower of Shiva..But i'm really confused, In some places I read that Krishna was a devotee of Shiva and in some places like Bhagavad Gita I read that Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead.In some places i read that Shiva was a devotee of Krishna. I am extremely drawn to Shiva, but I am also blown away by the Bhagavad Gita and Krishnas words..When i start to meditate upon Shiva i feel great depth, but then somewhere in my mind comes the thought that Shiva was a devotee of Krishna and my meditation shifts from concentrating on Shiva to concentrating on Krishna because i feel that is what Shiva used to do, but then I remember how Shiva saved me and took me out of darkness and I switch back to Shiva...
If anybody has any insights it would be appreciated

[Kismet]

I used to be a Muslim but I went to India a few years ago and for some reason I was drawn to Shiva, I left Islam and now am devout follower of Shiva..But i'm really confused, In some places I read that Krishna was a devotee of Shiva and in some places like Bhagavad Gita I read that Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead.In some places i read that Shiva was a devotee of Krishna. I am extremely drawn to Shiva, but I am also blown away by the Bhagavad Gita and Krishnas words..When i start to meditate upon Shiva i feel great depth, but then somewhere in my mind comes the thought that Shiva was a devotee of Krishna and my meditation shifts from concentrating on Shiva to concentrating on Krishna because i feel that is what Shiva used to do, but then I remember how Shiva saved me and took me out of darkness and I switch back to Shiva...
If anybody has any insights it would be appreciated

Coincidence? I am actually going through this same exact problem. And I have to say I'm just as confused.

Don't lose hope though, I'm sure both of us, determined, will come to our true ishta-devata. Personally (this is just me guessing) it has less to do with speculating and more with surrender.

Good luck, and Namaste.

[dustyroad]

There is no need to be confused about this. All gods, including Krishna, shiva etc., are manifestations of the one supreme god, brahman. So you can worship both shiva and Krishna as aspects of brahman instead of seeing one as superior to the other.

[devotee]

Namaste Adi,


I used to be a Muslim but I went to India a few years ago and for some reason I was drawn to Shiva, I left Islam and now am devout follower of Shiva..But i'm really confused, In some places I read that Krishna was a devotee of Shiva and in some places like Bhagavad Gita I read that Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead.In some places i read that Shiva was a devotee of Krishna. I am extremely drawn to Shiva, but I am also blown away by the Bhagavad Gita and Krishnas words..When i start to meditate upon Shiva i feel great depth, but then somewhere in my mind comes the thought that Shiva was a devotee of Krishna and my meditation shifts from concentrating on Shiva to concentrating on Krishna because i feel that is what Shiva used to do, but then I remember how Shiva saved me and took me out of darkness and I switch back to Shiva...
If anybody has any insights it would be appreciated

I think your confusion is due to ISKCON's literature which are doctored to suit their way of thinking. However, these are not authoritative scriptures.

Shiva and Vishnu/Krishna are not different. For the Vaishnavites, Vishnu/Krishna is Supreme and for the Shaivites, Shiva is Supreme. God is One alone. The names and forms are imposed on God by the faith/belief of the devotees. We have a saying :

"JAki rahi bhAvanA jaisi, Prabhu Moorat dekhi tin taisi"

===> God reveals to a devotee in the form he wants to see/worship.

Let me tell you that for Shaivaites, Shiva is all supreme ... everything is nothing but the great dance of Shiva. So, have no doubts over it.

OM

[wundermonk]

At a philosophical level, all 3 [brahma, vishnu and shiva] are different aspects of one Brahman. This is explained in Brahmasutras here (http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/bs_1/1-1-02.html) where Brahman is defined.

Coming from an Islamic background this may be difficult for you to understand [please do not misconstrue this, I mean this as a matter of fact and not in condescension, so, do not take offense].

Various Bhakti schools have their own Ishta Devata. These arent independent Gods but different aspects of the one supreme.

Hope this helps.

[Spiritualseeker]

Namaste,

I agree with Devotee. Issues like these I do not really like to get involved with, because to me it seems silly (I do not mean your question, but the debate over it). It is obvious that both are pointers to the Supreme. To me even Shiva is beyond Shiva. A lot of times the conditioned mind likes to turn simple teachings into something of many concepts and doctrines. These I reject, but that is only my view. I hope you find success on your way. I was a Muslim for 7 years. I think you will find great peace upon the Dharma.

Om Namah Shivaya

[adi]

At a philosophical level, all 3 [brahma, vishnu and shiva] are different aspects of one Brahman. This is explained in Brahmasutras here (http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/bs_1/1-1-02.html) where Brahman is defined.

Coming from an Islamic background this may be difficult for you to understand [please do not misconstrue this, I mean this as a matter of fact and not in condescension, so, do not take offense].

Various Bhakti schools have their own Ishta Devata. These arent independent Gods but different aspects of the one supreme.

Hope this helps.

Thanks it did help, i was OK untill i started to watch Devon Ka Devta Mahadev on star TV,lol, the program really confused things, but like you said everything is just a different aspect of one Brahman, IT MUST BE...
I figure if i keep my focus internally I will be fine.. I feel good..

Om Namah Shiva..
Om Tat Sat

[Jainarayan]

Namaste.

I can't get away from feeling this. Not just believing, but feeling.

Harihara, Shankaranarayana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harihara)



One and the same
Sivananda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sivananda) states: "Shiva and Vishnu are one and the same entity. They are essentially one and the same. They are the names given to the different aspects of the all-pervading Supreme Soul or the Absolute. ‘Sivasya hridayam vishnur-vishnoscha hridayam sivah—Vishnu is the heart of Siva and likewise Siva is the heart of Vishnu’."

Swaminarayan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swaminarayan) holds that Vishnu and Shiva are different aspects of the same God ( also called as bhogala hari siva kumar reddy) ;[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harihara#cite_note-1)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harihara#cite_note-2)[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harihara#cite_note-3) Notably, the Swaminarayan view is a minority view among Vaishnavites*, but the dominant view in contemporary Hinduism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism) which follows the Smarta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smarta) view in general.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harihara#cite_note-4)


* [my note: I'm always different :rolleyes: ]

[charitra]

Welcome.
Please explore Advaita or non dualism for greater understanding of hinduism.

Brahman is formless and genderless (likely to be confused with Brahma (without n) who is part of Brahma vishnu Maheswara). Namaste

[Eastern Mind]

Vannakkam: To me the question is irrelevant and potentially inflammatory, capable of causing division, for those who don't see the bigger picture. A better approach, in my opinion, is to ask yourself who you are naturally more inclined to. In Bengaluru I remember seeing two temples just beside each other. Which one would you like to visit? Go out in a non-judgmental open minded way, and just watch where your feet take you.

Similar method is used to discover whether a young athlete is left or right footed naturally. Coach has them stand straight then sneaks up and pushes them from behind. They will naturally step out with one foot or the other consistently.

Aum Namasivaya

[Believer]

Namaste,

To me the question is irrelevant and potentially inflammatory, capable of causing division, for those who don't see the bigger picture.
+1

Concurrent to this is a thread about NGOs in India who are busy Christianizing wide swaths of Hindu populations. And here we are, once again discussing which incarnation of the same Supreme is bigger/higher.

Pranam.

[Eastern Mind]

Namaste,

+1

Concurrent to this is a thread about NGOs in India who are busy Christianizing wide swaths of Hindu populations. And here we are, once again discussing which incarnation of the same Supreme is bigger/higher.

Pranam.

Vannakkam: Spoken in my best English pompous accent, from high on the thrones ..."I say, old chap, it's divide and conquer. Let those silly Hooligans fight amongst themselves, then the fruits and land shall be ours for the taking!"

Aum Namasivaya

[shian]

Thats it,
when peoples on Sanatana Dharma fight about which is higher and others is false or called persons who devotee of XXX Devi or other Istadevata or follower of other philosophy in Sanatana Dharma is materialistic or even "Lower than a demon", that is also make me feel surprisingly

[charitra]

Thats it,
when peoples on Sanatana Dharma fight about which is higher and others is false or called persons who devotee of XXX Devi or other Istadevata or follower of other philosophy in Sanatana Dharma is materialistic or even "Lower than a demon", that is also make me feel surprisingly
dont be hypersensitive folks. Sunnis kill shias and catholics want to usurp protestants, all that hindus do is only to participate in debates and go and pray together and eat together, once the debate is over. Please remember we all live in a comparative religion realm and, that attitude to look around provides lot of the required reassurance. Namaste.

[Eastern Mind]

dont be hypersensitive folks.

Vannakkam charitra: Although I appreciate the wisdom here, in practical terms, it may be easier said than done. Just as there is a range of intelligence, spiritual inclinations, etc., there is a range of sensitivity amongst embodied jivas. Some people are just naturally (or its a learned behaviour ... either way its still there) more sensitive to comments, etc.

On the school playground, the bully says, "We were just foolin' around" while his victim cries. Sometimes the bully honestly believes that.

At the death of a loved one, some take it so hard they never recover. Others are back in the swing of life in a few weeks.

I don't see it as thick skins versus thin skins, but rather all sides accepting the range, at least to whatever degree possible.

Aum Namasivaya

[Believer]

Namaste,

dont be hypersensitive folks. ..........
all that hindus do is only to participate in debates and go and pray together and eat together, once the debate is over.
Your point is well taken and appreciated. But consider this,

I think your confusion is due to ISKCON's literature which are doctored to suit their way of thinking. However, these are not authoritative scriptures. the above is a direct frontal attack on a sampradaye which would offend ISKCON followers in the forum. I am sure the poster did not mean to offend anyone and it was just a poor choice of words. Just saying that 'ISKCON literature only reflects one sapmradaye's interpretation of scriptures' would convey the same meaning without the inflammatory editorial comments. Every sampradaye has its own interpretation of the scriptures. Can we say that they are all 'doctored' and 'not authoritative'? When people cross the line, it ceases to be a debate and becomes the beginning of a mud wrestling bout for all to see. No meaningful cause is served by casual, thoughtless, un-articulated remarks, or by insinuating that the ISKCON followers are somehow non-Hindu shady characters. Others may disagree and describe it as a debate, and that is fine with me. I am all for a healthy debate. If this one is deemed to be in that category by the general membership, then don't mind my evaluation.

Pranam.

[shian]

dont be hypersensitive folks. Sunnis kill shias and catholics want to usurp protestants, all that hindus do is only to participate in debates and go and pray together and eat together, once the debate is over.

Is all will like you say :
"all that hindus do is only to participate in debates and go and pray together and eat together, once the debate is over"

i think not all.

About what happened in other religion,
If we can more better and even perfect, why should compare with other cruel things ?

But anyway, your reply is make me remeber again, this is samsara.

Then i dont talk about debate, i talk about sarcastic insult .

Yes debating or discusing the theory is no problem,
but learning peoples and peoples who have wisdom , or have Mother Saraswati seated in his tongue, will not use sarcastic words to describe other sect of Sanatana Dharma.

But back again, this is samsara.

[Adhvagat]

They worshipped Om.

[adi]

Hello all, i posted the question and i kind of wish that i had not done so..i did not
want to spark any kind of debate, infact my question has been misunderstood, i have only been following Sanatana Dharma for a year, i am just looking for the correct approach to my meditation..I just wanted to know what was the focus during Shivas meditations.i did not want to know who was superior.But it's OK now, i found a copy of "Vigyan Bhairava Tantra" which contains Shivas 112 methods of Yoga... I know my knowledge is basic, but i think there is no need to complicate things because you don't need complex knowledge to do Sadhana, infact i think it can become a hindrance because every thought is a deviation from the centre, and i think the centre contains all knowledge without the need for it to be expressed in words, infact i think human language can be a hindrance
to the true Bhakti... The world owes alot to Shiva, he is the source of all spiritual knowledge which exists...Even Buddha cannot be mentioned in the same breath as Shiva because all Buddha did was expound on one of Shivas methods which he lays out for us in the "Vigyan Bhairava Tantra"..

At the end of the day, God is God, he goes beyond all names, you can recognise him through silence.Recognition through silence and emmotion is most important. but Human intellect and society in general requires labels...

I love it...I've even become a Brahmacharya...

Om Tat Sat.

[devotee]

Namaste Believer,



Your point is well taken and appreciated. But consider this,
the above is a direct frontal attack on a sampradaye which would offend ISKCON followers in the forum. I am sure the poster did not mean to offend anyone and it was just a poor choice of words. Just saying that 'ISKCON literature only reflects one sapmradaye's interpretation of scriptures' would convey the same meaning without the inflammatory editorial comments. Every sampradaye has its own interpretation of the scriptures. Can we say that they are all 'doctored' and 'not authoritative'? When people cross the line, it ceases to be a debate and becomes the beginning of a mud wrestling bout for all to see. No meaningful cause is served by casual, thoughtless, un-articulated remarks, or by insinuating that the ISKCON followers are somehow non-Hindu shady characters. Others may disagree and describe it as a debate, and that is fine with me. I am all for a healthy debate. If this one is deemed to be in that category by the general membership, then don't mind my evaluation.


I wish you had read their version of Bhagwad Gita written by Sri La PrabhupAd before making these comments. The Bhagwad Gita As It Is, written by Sri PrabhuPAd by which was going to be banned in Russia was due to this distortion.

... and how "Bhagwad Gita As It Is" or any scriptures written by anyone from any such organisation becomes authoritative ? Anyone is free to write commentary as he likes or interpret the scriptures but how can it become authority for Hindus ? Authority of scriptures is well decided in Hindu society. The Shruti is the highest authority followed by Smritis and then the PirANas. Any commentary made by anyone is only as authoritative as it conforms to the Shruti. This has been accepted by all Vedic schools of Hindu Dharma.
Their assertion that Shiva is a demi-God and enjoys a lower status as compared to Lord Vishnu is not as per Shruti. It also violates Shaivites scriptures.

OM

[shian]

@ Adi,

Yes Shiva is GREAT
im agree
in fact , as far i know, in spiritual realisation peoples who expert in slandering other sect is cant compare with an old woman who cant read anythings but only chanting Om Namah Shivaya with deep devotion.
I still find many peoples who expert in slandering other sect is have many life problem and stress, even they are the monk or priest (whatever religion), they cant know when they will die and die in peace, many of them die in sorrow.
But an old woman, who cant read, and only chant Om Namah Shivaya with pure heart, even know when she will die and prepare for the last things for herself, and die in peace meditation :)

[anirvan]

Hello all, i posted the question and i kind of wish that i had not done so..i did not
want to spark any kind of debate, infact my question has been misunderstood, i have only been following Sanatana Dharma for a year, i am just looking for the correct approach to my meditation..I just wanted to know what was the focus during Shivas meditations.i did not want to know who was superior.But it's OK now, i found a copy of "Vigyan Bhairava Tantra" which contains Shivas 112 methods of Yoga... I know my knowledge is basic, but i think there is no need to complicate things because you don't need complex knowledge to do Sadhana, infact i think it can become a hindrance because every thought is a deviation from the centre, and i think the centre contains all knowledge without the need for it to be expressed in words, infact i think human language can be a hindrance
to the true Bhakti... The world owes alot to Shiva, he is the source of all spiritual knowledge which exists...Even Buddha cannot be mentioned in the same breath as Shiva because all Buddha did was expound on one of Shivas methods which he lays out for us in the "Vigyan Bhairava Tantra"..

At the end of the day, God is God, he goes beyond all names, you can recognise him through silence.Recognition through silence and emmotion is most important. but Human intellect and society in general requires labels...

I love it...I've even become a Brahmacharya...

Om Tat Sat.

Dear Adi,excellent statements and excellent grasp of the subject.The passion,the emotive attitude you already have is very rare even in a born-veteran hindu.I dont think you need any suggestion for your spiritual sadhana here.only thing you need is sat-sang and guru.You just pray lord siva and keep open your eyes for true guru and satsanga.

[anirvan]

Thats it,
when peoples on Sanatana Dharma fight about which is higher and others is false or called persons who devotee of XXX Devi or other Istadevata or follower of other philosophy in Sanatana Dharma is materialistic or even "Lower than a demon", that is also make me feel surprisingly

Dear shian,Your statement is not appropriate.If you see the statements of Great persons like Chaitanya,Ramanuja,Madhva,Nimbarka,swaminarayana, they have greatly glorified their istha.There is absolutely no problem.This arguments only boost one"s Istha-nistha.

Its a sign of Love,not lower or demonic attitude. Ask a woman to compare between his dark graduate husband with a very handsome havard educated truly nice guy,she will find fault in latter and hundred glory with her husband.This is not demonic but shows her true love and passion.

Only SHANTA BHAVA type devotee,jnani(not true devotee in the sense formless form of divine) will not understand this trait of a bhakta and criticise.

Just fall in love and see how love make you stupid.such stupid is definitely dear to divine.

[charitra]

The Brihadarnayaka and chandogya are regarded as the oldest of the Upanishads, they occupy a superior position of all the Upanishads known to us. Discussing profound philosophical truths through numerous anecdotes, they form the basis of the later development of the Vedanta Philosophy. Sankaracharya, in establishing the philosophy of non-dualism, derived support from such statements of the Chandogya Up. as : ‘ one only without a second’ (VI. xiv, I), ‘ From It the universe comes forth, into It the universe merges, and in It the universe breathes. Therefore a man must meditate with a calm mind’ ( III, xiv, i) and ‘ That is the Self, That thou art’ ( VI, viii, 7). If a serious student carefully studies the Chandogya Up. with the help of Shankaracharya’s commentary, then he will come to know all the major topics of the Upanishads and will be directed towards the philosophy of the inscrutable Brahman. – swami Nikhilanada.

With that profound secular hinduism in the backdrop outshining all the denominational schism out there, I see no major issues with vaishnavaites (including Isconites, god bless tham! ) or shaivites following their own Bhakti rituals and get ecstatic in paaravashya all they want . It is that sometimes they get carried away with the nomenclature with Saguna Brahman albeit tad bit more jingoistic at that. These sampradays only strengthened the hindu fold in all those centuries when the hindus were subjected to relentless invasions by the marauders. It is common knowledge that the overwhelming number of hindus are Smartas, some know it some don’t, that remains the ground reality nevertheless. Namaste.

[Believer]

Namaste,

I wish you had read their version of Bhagwad Gita written by Sri La PrabhupAd ........
I have read that version but I will not attack them and I choose not to get into a debate about this issue AGAIN.

Refer to post #24 of the following thread,
http://hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=6345


With that profound secular hinduism in the backdrop outshining all the denominational schism out there, I see no major issues with vaishnavaites (including Isconites, god bless them! ) or shaivites following their own Bhakti rituals and get ecstatic in paaravashya all they want . It is that sometimes they get carried away with the nomenclature with Saguna Brahman albeit tad bit more jingoistic at that. These sampradays only strengthened the hindu fold in all those centuries when the hindus were subjected to relentless invasions by the marauders. It is common knowledge that the overwhelming number of hindus are Smartas, some know it some don’t, that remains the ground reality nevertheless.
+1

I looked in the mirror this morning and I found myself stained with all kind of foul things. Under these conditions, I find myself incapable of passing judgement on any of the sampradayes. They are all Hindu and part of what I am. (Maili chaadar auD ke kaise, dwaar tumaahare aayooN - How can I be worthy of meeting you O Lord, my shawl (human form) is blemished with so many stains!)

Pranam.

[shian]

When i read Shiva worship Vishnu, i think Vishnu is great but not think Shiva is lower.

When i read Vishnu worship Shiva, i think Shiva is great , but not think Vishnu is lower.

When i read Shiva worship Buddha, i think Buddha is great , but not think Shiva is lower.

When i read Brahma - Vishnu - Shiva and all sages worship Shakti, i think Shakti is great, but not think Brahma - Vishnu - Shiva and all sages is lower.

This matter is very very common in Hinduism, Buddhism and Taoism (But off course all of this philosophy and way of thinking is influence of ancient Hindu sages of India), so when i worship my Yidam or principal Deity, i never think the other is lower. Never think who is lower who is higher. And i love my Principal Deity but i no need to see other Deitys as lower.

These kind of story (Deitys worship each others) is have very deep meaning and we can learn from it. That is really not mean who is high who is low.

Well i find many peoples spread the story of Sacred text is just like a legend or myth, so peoples who read or hear that will feel strange, why Lord doing such things

[ShivaFan]

Iam by no means an expert regarding the higher aspects of Sanatana Dharma, somany members of this forum are adepts and masters in this regard who can givethe proper response. But as a simpledevotee of both Shiva and Vishnu, as well as Devi of course, I come from thepoint of view of being a simple devotee and having heard the Gita, Ramayana,Puranas, Vedas and so on from Hindu friends and teachers I am inspired and in factit is these revelations from such histories and sacred texts that inspire mylove for Bhagavan and Mahadeva.

Take the example of the sacred tirtha, the holy and magic place called Varanasi. I have been to Kashi and my request is thatwhen I die that my ashes be thrown into the Ganga at Manikarnika.

Now at this very place, there is a Kund or pool which Vishnu cut with his disc SudarshanaChakra and is sacred – called the Manikarnika Kund.This pond is said to be older than Ganga according to what I have beentaught. The word Manikarnika meansJewel(ed) (mani) ear(ring) (karnika). Itis not far from Manikarnika Ghat. NowVishnu declared this entire area possessing a divine light, thus it is Kashi orLight. And Kashi is the never forsakenplace of Lord Shiva. You see, Vishnuloved Lord Shiva and being a great devotee of Mahadeva, there is a reason it iscalled Manikarnika and it involved Lord Vishnu.

When Lord Shiva came upon the holy tirtha (ford, cross over, sacred door) ofthis Kund and this place, which in fact was in honor of Shiva, at that moment Mahadevawas so filled with devotion upon seeing Vishnu that he literally shook. You know, if you are ever in the presence ofa savant, this may happen to you as well, you do not even imagine you wouldhave such a reaction but it indeed happens where literally you can feelyourself shake and it is very strange and almost embarrassing, yet you know ithas something to do with being in the presence of something very special. So the Lord shook and His earring fell.

So this is the place where Lord Shiva’s earring fell. Shiva shook with happiness when Vishnurequested “that the Lord always dwell here”. So you see, Vishnu worshipped Shiva, and Shiva worshipped Vishnu.

Let us take the example of the Ramayana. I am a devotee of Lord Ram, who is the same Vishnu and Krishna, who cameto the Earth before Krishna came. As youmay know, beloved Sita was kidnapped by the Rakshasa Ravana. Joined by Hanuman (who is Shiva) and a hostof monkeys and bears, Lord Rama marched to Lanka (Sri Lanka) where Ravana wasthe Hierophant and King – they crossed over a bridge which they constructedfrom India to Lanka, and I have been taught that Lord Rama installed a ShivaLingam before this bridge where puja was offered upon His return from Lanka toIndia. Yet, I havealso been taught that Ravan was a devotee of Shiva,but Lord Ram loved Shiva so much despite the fact that a devotee of Mahadeva wasalso the very one who abducted Mother Sita.

I was also told that in fact not only upon the return of the Armies was aLingam constructed, but before crossing the bridge to Lanka that a Lingam wasput in place as well. And that, whileRavana had may vimanas (flying machines) which he could have used to destroythe bridge, and had intelligence that it was constructed, yet Ravana did notsend these vimanas out. Why? I am told that being a great devotee of LordShiva, he would not do so because there was this Lingam at that place and notwanting to destroy the Lingam so the bridge was left in place. Where true or not, there are many examples ofthe love between, and the devotion between, Shiva and Vishnu, between thedevotees of each to each other.

Vishveshwara is the Lord.
The waves of Ganga are His wine.
Vishvanatha is the Lord of Kashi.
Never Forsaken, Kashi is the Light.

Oh I wish this moment,
I could be in Kashi.
Where all the Gods have Come,
Together to be One.

[Lokavidu]

I used to be a Muslim but I went to India a few years ago and for some reason I was drawn to Shiva, I left Islam and now am devout follower of Shiva..But i'm really confused, In some places I read that Krishna was a devotee of Shiva and in some places like Bhagavad Gita I read that Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead.In some places i read that Shiva was a devotee of Krishna. I am extremely drawn to Shiva, but I am also blown away by the Bhagavad Gita and Krishnas words..When i start to meditate upon Shiva i feel great depth, but then somewhere in my mind comes the thought that Shiva was a devotee of Krishna and my meditation shifts from concentrating on Shiva to concentrating on Krishna because i feel that is what Shiva used to do, but then I remember how Shiva saved me and took me out of darkness and I switch back to Shiva...
If anybody has any insights it would be appreciated

may I know the reasons behind your conversion? I think, they are interesting..thank you

[RajjasVeer]

Everyone with a little common sense and familiar with Hinduism knows the hierarchy of Gods in it. Basically, there were three main Gods. Brahma- the God of creation, Vishnu- the God of Protection and Shiva- the God of Destruction. Every single story of creation revolves around these three Gods. Either Brahma created the universe or Vishnu did or Shiva as well. Vaishnavists believe Vishnu is the Ultimate God and he was the source of creation while Shaivists believe Shiva as the most powerful one. But none of these theories in Puranas introduces Sri Krishna at the time of creation. Krishna only appear in Hinduism in Dwapara Yuga as an incarnation of Lord Vishnu. However, according to ISKCON, Krishna existed since the beginning and Vishnu is just an avatar of him. There are four Vedas, twenty Puranas and hundreds of Upanishads in Hinduism. Not one of them support the theories ISKCON proposes.

In recorded history, the very first God to appear in Hinduism is none other than Lord Shiva. Pashupati, the primitive form of Lord Shiva can be found in the Indus Valley Civilization around 3500 BC while Krishna emerged around 500 BC. People worshiped him as one of the ten Avatars of Lord Vishnu, not as the Supreme Godhead.

That is just plain history recorded by the archeologists. In the history according to the Puranas and Epics(which I personally believe as I got enough evidences to do so), we can find the personalities/incarnations of Lord Vishnu living on the face of the earth throughout. Vaman, Parasuram, Ram etc. Even the existence of Lord Krishna can be proved as the ruins of the sunken city of Dwarka is been found deep below the Arabian Sea. Shiva never appeared in just one point of time or event or in a particular yuga. Earth witnessed his presence more than once since the dawn of time. Why? Because Lord Shiva is above the yugas or time. Yugas are timescale of our world and Lord Shiva is beyond that.

The International Society for Krishna Consciousness has done a great job in taking the Indian Culture to the rest of the world. A lot of people all around the globe felt the divine call by the touch of Holy Bhagavat Gita. Unfortunately, on their process, ISKCON twisted, altered and distorted Hinduism. They have actually Chritianified Sanatana Dharma. It was formed by Acharya Bhaktivedanta Swami in 1966. Just a half a century old. This holy religious organization turned into a cult and tampered with the philosphies which are some 3000 years old.


Even though I'm a worshiper of Lord Shiva, I'm not a Shaivist. I don't believe Lord Shiva is the Supreme God. Instead, I believe in Advaita that all Gods are one. The whole 300 Million Gods of Hinduism and even the Gods of other religions are just one. Shiva, Vishnu and others are manifestation of this single entity. In Hinduism, its called 'Parabrahma'. Muslims call it 'Allah' and different names in different religions according to their language.

What had lead to the misunderstanding that Lord Krishna as the Ultimate God? In Bhagavat Gita, Krishna says such things to Arjuna more than once. Its worth being followed but not literally. You see, Arjuna realizes that Krishna is not just an ordinary human being but is an incarnation of Lord Vishnu. In that sense, whatever Krishna says, its on behalf of Vishnu. Does that make Vishnu the Supreme one? No, Hinduism teaches All Gods Are ONE concept. Vishnu is the manifestation of Parabrahma. The one without a personal form. The energy which balances the world. The energy in you and me and all living and non-living things in the world.

If you still have confusion understanding, consider this illustration. Artificial Intelligence(AI) of your computer. Isn't it a single entity? Yes, the one which programs the whole machine. You're playing a game in it, suppose..FIFA13. The user(you) is playing against a team of 11 players. They are distinct 11 players but still they all are single AI. They all move in different directions, some tackling you, some guarding the goal post yet, they are one- the Artificial Intelligence. One of the player, lets give him a name, player-X scores a goal. Lets congratulate him- but wait...its the AI who is behind player-X's strength. Player-X dances, is it his skill? Yes...but its AI too. All other players in the opposite team is AI. Maybe, a player in your team scores a goal. Yes, its due to the player's skills but its yours as well. You should be appreciated for the goal.

So, Lord Krishna was right saying he is the supreme one. But he didn't mean literally, its the Nirakara Rupa Parabrahma who is the Ultimate God. The one without shape or size, eyes or ears, human nor animal- an infinite celestial omnipresent omniscient energy.

[Necromancer]

I used to be a Muslim but I went to India a few years ago and for some reason I was drawn to Shiva, I left Islam and now am devout follower of Shiva..But i'm really confused, In some places I read that Krishna was a devotee of Shiva and in some places like Bhagavad Gita I read that Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead.In some places i read that Shiva was a devotee of Krishna. I am extremely drawn to Shiva, but I am also blown away by the Bhagavad Gita and Krishnas words..When i start to meditate upon Shiva i feel great depth, but then somewhere in my mind comes the thought that Shiva was a devotee of Krishna and my meditation shifts from concentrating on Shiva to concentrating on Krishna because i feel that is what Shiva used to do, but then I remember how Shiva saved me and took me out of darkness and I switch back to Shiva...
If anybody has any insights it would be appreciated
Aum Swastiyastu.

I am just a tad biased (being that I am a devotee of Lord Shiva)...and so, whenever I face this conundrum, I remember that it was Lord Vishnu who offered one of His eyes to Lord Shiva out of devotion (and scored the Sudarshan Chakra out of it).

I remember Lord Rama worshiping Lord Shiva to get His blessings to be able to defeat Ravana.

What does your heart tell you though?

We can go into 'who worships whom' but why should that have any bearing on who you do?

I like to think/feel that Lord Shiva and Lord Krishna are 'one and the same'. I was even a member of ISKCON for a while worshiping Lord Krishna as a Shiva devotee! I mean, nobody could ever agree on anything....but I loved Lord Krishna all the same. It was the teachings I had problems with.

If you are meant to be Lord Shiva's there will be no doubt. No doubt whatsoever.

Aum Namah Shivaya.

[Sevaka Ji]

Vannakkam:

As in Islam, there is only one god. That's the end of it. There is only ONE god. Call him Shiva, Vishnu/Krishna, Allah, Jesus, etc. They're all the same. They are different manifestations of the exact same god. So there is really no contradiction here. You can worship "any" god you like, and you are still worshiping the one supreme god. I'll quote ISKCON for this "it doesn't matter what you call Him just as long as you call." :)

[sapansaxena]

Aum Swastiyastu.

I am just a tad biased (being that I am a devotee of Lord Shiva)...and so, whenever I face this conundrum, I remember that it was Lord Vishnu who offered one of His eyes to Lord Shiva out of devotion (and scored the Sudarshan Chakra out of it).

I remember Lord Rama worshiping Lord Shiva to get His blessings to be able to defeat Ravana.

.

Namaste
I think more than remembrance, as we were not present when these things took place, we just read it in Puranas, and other sacred books.
The hierarchy which is common in all the Puranas is a well-placed and acknowledged concept, and no one doubts it.
Regarding who worships whom, there is a general respect and admiration in all the lords for each other, and that is again, not debatable.

[Believer]

Namaste,

First of all welcome to the forum.


Instead, I believe in Advaita that all Gods are one.
With that as the conclusion, what was the need for a long discourse?


The whole 300 Million Gods of Hinduism and even the Gods of other religions are just one. Shiva, Vishnu and others are manifestation of this single entity. In Hinduism, its called 'Parabrahma'. Muslims call it 'Allah' and different names in different religions according to their language.
Names of God change with the philosophy one follows, and not with the language one speaks.

Equating Hindu Gods with the muslim god is something I would expect from a Hindu politician out to get elected at any cost, not from you, a learned person.

Pranam.

[RajjasVeer]

Names of God change with the philosophy one follows, and not with the language one speaks.

Equating Hindu Gods with the muslim god is something I would expect from a Hindu politician out to get elected at any cost, not from you, a learned person.

Pranam.


I Know that. The rest of the theories in Quran are just pointless. Jihad, polygamy, their views against idol worshiping, their concept of heaven and hell. But Allah being an invisible force, cant disagree on that.

:( did i sound like a politician? Sorry.

Honestly, i just copy-pasted it from an article I wrote it on my blog . Thats why its lengthy. Sorry for that too..

[Believer]

Namaste,

But Allah being an invisible force, cant disagree on that.

An invisible force that in your own words preaches 'Jihad, polygamy, their views against idol worshiping' is acceptable; just because it is, as you say, an invisible force? Really?


Honestly, i just copy-pasted it from an article I wrote it on my blog .
First of all, as the admin will tell you, copy and paste and treating HDF as the dumping ground is against the forum rules. Secondly, one must learn and soak up all the knowledge and practice bhakti before preaching through a blog. When in the learning mode, a blog should be like a personal diary, not a preaching tool. Asking me to be your blog chela is like you trying to be a spiritual guru to your grandfather. Would you have any success in that?

Pranam.

[Satyaban]

I am coming on this a little late but let me start with the following description of Lord Shiva's nature by SatguruSivaya Subramuniyaswami:
"Saivismproclaims: God Siva is Love, both immanent and transcendent, both the creatorand the creation. This world is the arena of our evolution, which leads bystages to moksha, liberation from birth and death. Aum."

I don't understand how Islam's considerations of "God's" nature are pertinent but considering the above quote I do not believe Lord Shiva to be vengeful, to be feared, or demanding of submission lest er suffer Allah's wrath.

No, Lord Shiva is love.
Being a devotee of Lord Shiva I do not believe there have been incarnations of God thus there has been no Krishna, Hanuman or the eight other incarnations of Vishnu. Following this I do not accept the Gita as scripture but a remarkable book of the philosophy of Sanatana Dharma. Krishna and the other characters are used to exemplify our philosophy in a most beautiful and spiritual way.

Shiva is the Supreme Absolute Truth, Reality and Love to be worshiped by all.

[Vitani]

Vannakkam:

As in Islam, there is only one god. That's the end of it. There is only ONE god. Call him Shiva, Vishnu/Krishna, Allah, Jesus, etc. They're all the same. They are different manifestations of the exact same god. So there is really no contradiction here. You can worship "any" god you like, and you are still worshiping the one supreme god. I'll quote ISKCON for this "it doesn't matter what you call Him just as long as you call." :)

Namaste,

Gah. Please do not compare my beloved Shiva with the blood loving Allah of Islam.

[sanathan]

Dear topic initiator, don't fall in the trap of your ego or these self proclaimed gurus, just follow Sasthra , what it teaches is ultimate. To understand Sasthra you need a Guru who is devoid of EGO and completely surrendered to Almighty , no one else here can help you.

Just crave for ultimate reality with true heart without any sign of EGO, you will be shown path by that ultimate.

[Sudas Paijavana]

delete

[Satyaban]

How can our dharma even be considered in a non-vedic perspective?

"In a non-Vedic context, Krishna worships Shiva and Shiva worships Krishna. This is an example of unity between representations of one brahman."

How can this be done. Can one speak of Islam without the Koran? Your Shiva and Krishna relationships has no foundation without the Vedas.

[jnana shiva]

Iam by no means an expert regarding the higher aspects of Sanatana Dharma, somany members of this forum are adepts and masters in this regard who can givethe proper response. But as a simpledevotee of both Shiva and Vishnu, as well as Devi of course, I come from thepoint of view of being a simple devotee and having heard the Gita, Ramayana,Puranas, Vedas and so on from Hindu friends and teachers I am inspired and in factit is these revelations from such histories and sacred texts that inspire mylove for Bhagavan and Mahadeva.

Take the example of the sacred tirtha, the holy and magic place called Varanasi. I have been to Kashi and my request is thatwhen I die that my ashes be thrown into the Ganga at Manikarnika.

Now at this very place, there is a Kund or pool which Vishnu cut with his disc SudarshanaChakra and is sacred – called the Manikarnika Kund.This pond is said to be older than Ganga according to what I have beentaught. The word Manikarnika meansJewel(ed) (mani) ear(ring) (karnika). Itis not far from Manikarnika Ghat. NowVishnu declared this entire area possessing a divine light, thus it is Kashi orLight. And Kashi is the never forsakenplace of Lord Shiva. You see, Vishnuloved Lord Shiva and being a great devotee of Mahadeva, there is a reason it iscalled Manikarnika and it involved Lord Vishnu.

When Lord Shiva came upon the holy tirtha (ford, cross over, sacred door) ofthis Kund and this place, which in fact was in honor of Shiva, at that moment Mahadevawas so filled with devotion upon seeing Vishnu that he literally shook. You know, if you are ever in the presence ofa savant, this may happen to you as well, you do not even imagine you wouldhave such a reaction but it indeed happens where literally you can feelyourself shake and it is very strange and almost embarrassing, yet you know ithas something to do with being in the presence of something very special. So the Lord shook and His earring fell.

So this is the place where Lord Shiva’s earring fell. Shiva shook with happiness when Vishnurequested “that the Lord always dwell here”. So you see, Vishnu worshipped Shiva, and Shiva worshipped Vishnu.

Let us take the example of the Ramayana. I am a devotee of Lord Ram, who is the same Vishnu and Krishna, who cameto the Earth before Krishna came. As youmay know, beloved Sita was kidnapped by the Rakshasa Ravana. Joined by Hanuman (who is Shiva) and a hostof monkeys and bears, Lord Rama marched to Lanka (Sri Lanka) where Ravana wasthe Hierophant and King – they crossed over a bridge which they constructedfrom India to Lanka, and I have been taught that Lord Rama installed a ShivaLingam before this bridge where puja was offered upon His return from Lanka toIndia. Yet, I havealso been taught that Ravan was a devotee of Shiva,but Lord Ram loved Shiva so much despite the fact that a devotee of Mahadeva wasalso the very one who abducted Mother Sita.

I was also told that in fact not only upon the return of the Armies was aLingam constructed, but before crossing the bridge to Lanka that a Lingam wasput in place as well. And that, whileRavana had may vimanas (flying machines) which he could have used to destroythe bridge, and had intelligence that it was constructed, yet Ravana did notsend these vimanas out. Why? I am told that being a great devotee of LordShiva, he would not do so because there was this Lingam at that place and notwanting to destroy the Lingam so the bridge was left in place. Where true or not, there are many examples ofthe love between, and the devotion between, Shiva and Vishnu, between thedevotees of each to each other.

Vishveshwara is the Lord.
The waves of Ganga are His wine.
Vishvanatha is the Lord of Kashi.
Never Forsaken, Kashi is the Light.

Oh I wish this moment,
I could be in Kashi.
Where all the Gods have Come,
Together to be One.
Namaste Shiva Fan:

I loved your beautiful words of devotion for my beloved Lord Shiva, which were moist with the nectar of a heart full of worship. I especially loved your stanzas regarding Vishveshwara, the Lord of Never Forsaken Kashi. May I ask, did you write these lines? If not, may I ask who wrote them?

Aum Namah Shivaya.

Pranam,
jnana shiva

[jnana shiva]

Namaste Adi:

I too had some difficulties sorting out my devotion to Lord Shiva and Lord Krishna when I was newly converted.

I love both, truly, and of course, for they are different aspects of the supreme Lord, who I know as Paramashiva (Kashmir Shaivism), and is known to many as Brahman.

I think it is helpful to recognize that there are times when our hearts become more tender in our love for God. When you have just converted is of course one of those times.

Shiva the compassionate knows this. He offers you only love as you find what is "right" in your heart to worship Him best. He will take great pleasure in your mutual feelings of worship for Lord Krishna, who as the avatar of Supreme Lord Vishnu is made from the same great and transcendent Lord of all.

Pranam,
jnana shiva


He who is one,
He who dispenses
The inherent needs
Of all people and all times,
He who is the beginning
Of all things, may He unite
Us in the bond
Of goodwill

~Rigveda

[Sevaka Ji]

Namaste,

Gah. Please do not compare my beloved Shiva with the blood loving Allah of Islam.

Vannakam: I did not. I was comparing the beliefs of Sanatana Dharma and Islam. Not the gods.

[kundanghanekar]

Well, i don't know much about interdependency but both are same. Although it is good for u that you are going for both. As i said in previous post, shiva is feeling. What i feel for shiva is different than for krishna. And as they say when u pray for shiva,u will also get attention of vishnu.

[Necromancer]

Namaste.

Lord Vishnu and Lord Shiva worship each other. They are good friends.

It can be said that devotees made it this way to try and convert Shaivites into Vaishnavas and vice-versa and that may be the case.

That being said, when one is a devotee of Lord Shiva, they don't care about who else worships Him, as long as they (personally) do.

About ISKCON vs Shaivism....that's like comparing apples and oranges.

They are both fruit, meaning they are branches of Hinduism, but they both look and taste totally different and it all boils down to which you prefer to eat.

People who like apples will tell you that oranges taste disgusting....even though you may like oranges and disagree.

I was praying to Lord Shiva and Lord Krishna before...until my Guru-ji said to me "If you place each foot in a separate boat, you'll fall in the water'.

You have to choose which 'side' to be on. You must also respect those who wish to stay on the other side.

It is not better or worse...just 'different'.

Aum Namah Shivaya

[Crane-Foot King]

Maybe they worshiped each other, out of respect for one another.
Krishna is an avatar of Vishnu, who is one of Shiva's best friends, and another aspect of him. When Sati died and Shiva was furious, but Vishnu managed to calm him. That alone shows their love and friendship for each other.
Maybe Shiva worshiped Krishna out of love for Vishnu, and Vishnu worshiped Shiva out of love for him.
Unlike us, Vishnu and Shiva don't have egos. They don't have to be stronger than the other.

[Arav]

When it comes to "different" Gods worshipping eachother, I look at it as a sign of their oneness. Shiva worships Vishnu, Vishnu worships Shiva, they both worship Shakti and Shakti worships them, on and on etc. I see that as a sign of the oneness behind the Gods. They are all the same, just expressions of Divine Consciousness playing with it's Power, which through our eyes becomes our reality but is really the Divine Lila.

[philosoraptor]

When it comes to "different" Gods worshipping eachother, I look at it as a sign of their oneness. Shiva worships Vishnu, Vishnu worships Shiva, they both worship Shakti and Shakti worships them, on and on etc. I see that as a sign of the oneness behind the Gods. They are all the same, just expressions of Divine Consciousness playing with it's Power, which through our eyes becomes our reality but is really the Divine Lila.

How does one deity worshipping another indicate oneness? If they are truly the same, then there is no need for one to worship the other... as that would be self-worship.

[Arav]

How does one deity worshipping another indicate oneness? If they are truly the same, then there is no need for one to worship the other... as that would be self-worship.

1. It shows an equality.
2. I accept Advaitavada. Therefore any form of worship is ultimately Self worship.

[philosoraptor]

1. It shows an equality.

If one text says that A worships B, and another text says that B worships A, it is not reconciliatory of both texts to say that A = B. Especially when the first text said that A is supreme and B is not supreme, while the second text said that B is supreme and A is not supreme. This is merely elementary logic, not a sectarian position.


2. I accept Advaitavada. Therefore any form of worship is ultimately Self worship.

That's actually not what Advaita says. Adi shankarAchArya, the authority on Advaita philosophy and the author of the Advaita commentary on the Vedanta-sutras, distinguishes between Brahman and other devas in his Vedanta-commentary, his commentary on the Kena Upanishad (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=99758&postcount=6), and in several places in his Bhagavad-gita commentary (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=11091).

regards,

[Jeffery D. Long]

If one text says that A worships B, and another text says that B worships A, it is not reconciliatory of both texts to say that A = B. Especially when the first text said that A is supreme and B is not supreme, while the second text said that B is supreme and A is not supreme. This is merely elementary logic, not a sectarian position.

A fair point, and I don't want to speak for anyone else, but I suspect that some of us are sometimes drawn to conclusions such as A = B in an effort to develop a single coherent position out of what are originally quite distinct textual traditions that are today grouped under the rubric "Hindu." One possible strategy for doing this, and seeking to avoid sectarianism, is to attempt precisely this kind of reconciliation. Of course the inevitable result is that one ends up just developing a new sect, because the adherents of "A is supreme" and "B is supreme," respectively, have not gone away. So now we have simply added "A = B" to the mix. But what the adherents of "A = B" really want to do is to be able to claim the texts of "A is supreme" and "B is supreme" as part of a greater Hindu heritage. Does this make sense?

[philosoraptor]

A fair point, and I don't want to speak for anyone else, but I suspect that some of us are sometimes drawn to conclusions such as A = B in an effort to develop a single coherent position out of what are originally quite distinct textual traditions that are today grouped under the rubric "Hindu." One possible strategy for doing this, and seeking to avoid sectarianism, is to attempt precisely this kind of reconciliation. Of course the inevitable result is that one ends up just developing a new sect, because the adherents of "A is supreme" and "B is supreme," respectively, have not gone away. So now we have simply added "A = B" to the mix. But what the adherents of "A = B" really want to do is to be able to claim the texts of "A is supreme" and "B is supreme" as part of a greater Hindu heritage. Does this make sense?

Honestly, no. The problem is, A=B cannot be derived from statements which say A>B or from statements which say B>A. So, by saying "A=B," one is not actually reconciling the A>B and B>A texts. On the contrary, one is simply saying that both statements A>B and B>A are wrong. Which, I for one have no problem with (in the sense that, at least, that would be consistent).

But then, the proponents of "A=B" claim to respect the authority of texts which happen to say that A>B and the texts which say B>A, and therein lies the problem. You can't have it both ways. Either one of the two sets of statements are correct or none are correct; they can't both be correct as they contradict each other.

Unfortunately, that doesn't stop the A=B believer from waving his hands and glossing over this point, and arguing that it's somehow inconceivably the case that both sets of contradictory statements are true, which is once again, illogical. Such a tactic also does not speak highly of the cognitive capacity of those who use it. On the contrary, it makes us look silly and sentimental, at a critical time when we need to be better representatives of our religion in the public domain.

[Viraja]

Krishna might or might not have worshiped Shiva, Shiva might or might not have worshiped Krishna, however, according to Sri U.Ve. Karunakarachariar (an upanyasakar on Srivaishnavam), Lord Shiva is the same as Sri Vishnu. He tells in an upanyasam that Lord Shiva was once talking to ma Parvathi and telling her that he got beaten thrice on earth... all those times, and during the 'Pittukku-maNN sumatha leela' when he was beaten, all the worlds, including MA LAKSHMI felt the beating! And this was because Lord Shiva is the same as Sri Vishnu and Sri Lakshmi recides in Sri Vishnu's chest!

Also, in Tamil Nadu, in the mountanous place called Kutraalam, there is a 'Thirukkutraalanaathar Temple', legend has it that it was once Sri Vishnu temple and a sage converted the deity Sri Vishnu into Lord Shiva there! (To show the unity between Sri Vishnu and Lord Shiva).

[Jeffery D. Long]

On the contrary, one is simply saying that both statements A>B and B>A are wrong. Which, I for one have no problem with (in the sense that, at least, that would be consistent).

I think this is why the adherents of A=B end up simply becoming one more sect, in addition to, rather than synthesizing or taking the place of, A>B and B>A. And yes, this aspect of A=B needs to be accepted honestly by those who adhere to this position: it is a distinct position that ultimately claims superiority over other views (as all views logically must).

[Jeffery D. Long]

Krishna might or might not have worshiped Shiva, Shiva might or might not have worshiped Krishna, however, according to Sri U.Ve. Karunakarachariar (an upanyasakar on Srivaishnavam), Lord Shiva is the same as Sri Vishnu. He tells in an upanyasam that Lord Shiva was once talking to ma Parvathi and telling her that he got beaten thrice on earth... all those times, and during the 'Pittukku-maNN sumatha leela' when he was beaten, all the worlds, including MA LAKSHMI felt the beating! And this was because Lord Shiva is the same as Sri Vishnu and Sri Lakshmi recides in Sri Vishnu's chest!

Also, in Tamil Nadu, in the mountanous place called Kutraalam, there is a 'Thirukkutraalanaathar Temple', legend has it that it was once Sri Vishnu temple and a sage converted the deity Sri Vishnu into Lord Shiva there! (To show the unity between Sri Vishnu and Lord Shiva).

Namaste Viraja,

And I also find it intriguing that recitations of the 108 or 1000 names of Lord Vishnu include names such as Shiva, Nilakantha, etc.

Certainly not all Shastras affirm A>B or B>A. A=B also has its place in the tradition.

[Viraja]

Yes, Jeffery ji, it appears that Lord Shiva and Sri Vishnu might not be just equals, but one at the same. It is due to our own limitations that we are unable to explain the differences such as Sri Vishnu accepting only Tulsi and Lord Shiva accepting only Bilwa. But time and again, gods have proven to us that we need to think of them being the same or atleast in equal terms.

[Arav]

If one text says that A worships B, and another text says that B worships A, it is not reconciliatory of both texts to say that A = B. Especially when the first text said that A is supreme and B is not supreme, while the second text said that B is supreme and A is not supreme. This is merely elementary logic, not a sectarian position.
Cool, I see it differently, and I don't really feel like tangling up paragraphs and words trying to explain it. Some things are just understood on abstract levels, rather then logical concrete levels.



That's actually not what Advaita says. Adi shankarAchArya, the authority on Advaita philosophy and the author of the Advaita commentary on the Vedanta-sutras, distinguishes between Brahman and other devas in his Vedanta-commentary, his commentary on the Kena Upanishad (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=99758&postcount=6), and in several places in his Bhagavad-gita commentary (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=11091).

regards,

Good thing I'm not a staunch follower of Adi Shankara. I enjoy the things he wrote, and greatly respect Him, but I cease to take what He said as final authority. And, Advaitavada isn't just Advaita Vedanta. It is simply the doctrine of non-dualism. Even Shaktism can be refered to as Advaitavada, as it was by Mr. Arthur Avalon.

[philosoraptor]

Krishna might or might not have worshiped Shiva, Shiva might or might not have worshiped Krishna, however, according to Sri U.Ve. Karunakarachariar (an upanyasakar on Srivaishnavam), Lord Shiva is the same as Sri Vishnu. He tells in an upanyasam that Lord Shiva was once talking to ma Parvathi and telling her that he got beaten thrice on earth... all those times, and during the 'Pittukku-maNN sumatha leela' when he was beaten, all the worlds, including MA LAKSHMI felt the beating! And this was because Lord Shiva is the same as Sri Vishnu and Sri Lakshmi recides in Sri Vishnu's chest!

This is very different from the Sri Vaishnavism I have read about. I would appreciate some commentary from insiders of the tradition here. But as far shAstra is concerned, especially those shAstra-s which are integral to Sri Vaishnava tradition (i.e. bhAgavata purANa and viShNu purANa among others), shiva is a devotee of viShNu, not equal to viShNu. This latter point is brought out very clearly in the mohinI-murthy episode, as well as the bAnAsura yuddham.




And I also find it intriguing that recitations of the 108 or 1000 names of Lord Vishnu include names such as Shiva, Nilakantha, etc.

Certainly not all Shastras affirm A>B or B>A. A=B also has its place in the tradition.

Actually, Dr. Long, this has nothing to do with the alleged oneness of viShNu and shiva. The Rig veda 1.164.46 indicates that brahman is also known as indra, garutmAn, agni, mitra, etc. Indeed, all names of devas are names of brahman (see RV 10.82.3). This is only logical, since a brahman who possesses all divine qualities, would be expected to have all names corresponding to each of those qualities.

From a vishiShtAdvaitic viewpoint, everything is certainly "one," since everything has brahman as its innermost controller (a position that is elucidated quite clearly in the bRihadAraNyaka upaniShad, among others). However, shiva is no more "one" with viShNu than any other deva. However, it is true that shiva and brahmA are on a higher level than other deva-s, and many shlokas indicate that shiva is even higher than brahmA in some sense, though still not on the same level as viShNu.

The position of absolute sameness of everything cannot be maintained in the face of shruti-s which state the transcendence of brahman over all of this, of being beyond tamas, etc.



Good thing I'm not a staunch follower of Adi Shankara. I enjoy the things he wrote, and greatly respect Him, but I cease to take what He said as final authority. And, Advaitavada isn't just Advaita Vedanta. It is simply the doctrine of non-dualism. Even Shaktism can be refered to as Advaitavada, as it was by Mr. Arthur Avalon.

So you are a follower of Advaita, just not a follower of the AchArya who gave the definitive explanation of what Advaita is. Got it.

[Arav]

So you are a follower of Advaita, just not a follower of the AchArya who gave the definitive explanation of what Advaita is. Got it.

Re-read my post. Advaitavada simply means "doctrine of non dualism". Not to mention, there are others, like Rsi Thirumalar (sp?) who have non dual doctrines defined well before Adi Shankara. I am done with this conversation, seems like your responses to others posts are self serving (simply wanting to be right) and condescending to those simply expressing an opinion.

These docrines are slightly deeper than logical thinking processes. But it seems your would rather rely on others realizations and stay within the realm of intellectual knowledge.

[philosoraptor]

I am done with this conversation, seems like your responses to others posts are self serving (simply wanting to be right) and condescending to those simply expressing an opinion.

These docrines are slightly deeper than logical thinking processes. But it seems your would rather rely on others realizations and stay within the realm of intellectual knowledge.

You're being awfully dualistic for a guy who believes in non-dualism.

Just sayin'....

[hinduism♥krishna]

।। श्री गणेशाय नमः ।।

Namaste, jai shri krishna shiva !

Opinions are only opinions. They can not change the truth.
Both Krishna and shiva worships each other, Because they wana show the manushyas that " v r same, what u think about ourself is not true "

।। " twaya yadabhay datta tat datta makhil maya , matto vibhanatmanan drashtu narhasi shankar , yoham sa twam jagatchedam sadevasuramanusham avidyamohitatman purusha bhinnadarshinaha ।। ( विष्णु पुराणे 5 , 33, 47-48)

★ Lord krishna says to lord shiva: Whatever you give a peace to this world is what i give ! O shivam, do not consider yourself different from me. What i m , The same u and all these devatas asuras, sansar along with manushyas are! The people who are deluded by avidya ( maya) , only those consider a difference between u and me! ★
इति श्री विष्णु पुराणे \

।।Vishnoranya tu pashyanti ye ma bramhananeva va, kutarko matayo mudhaha pachyante naraken vaghah , ye cha mudha duratmano binnam pashyanti mam hare bramhan cha tatah tasmat bramha hatya sama twagham. ।।

★ Lord shiva says: Those people who consider myself and bramha different from vishnu, they evil witted stupid people fall in hell and suffer sorrow.
Similarly, Those who see bramha, vishnu and myself different, they incure a sin same as ' bramhahatya ' ★
इति भविष्योत्तर पुराण ।

Lord shiva and lord vishnu both say we are one, In fact there is not a one ness also, how we can show oneness about the same thing?
hari om tat sat ★

[Omkara]

Namaste Viraja,

And I also find it intriguing that recitations of the 108 or 1000 names of Lord Vishnu include names such as Shiva, Nilakantha, etc.

Certainly not all Shastras affirm A>B or B>A. A=B also has its place in the tradition.

The main problem with A=B is the fact that the puranas and itihasas depict the devas as separate entities. If you view the Vedas in isolation, a case can easily be made that all gods are the same.

[smaranam]

praNAm


How does one deity worshipping another indicate oneness? If they are truly the same, then there is no need for one to worship the other... as that would be self-worship.
That is precisely what it is once jnAna appears, because He is ALL there is...
and yet... there are roles to play ... roles to play ... oh the roles must be played, but moreover, it is our intrinsic nature to play them. The Gop-Gopis will always be so, KRshNa will always be their KanhaiyA. NimbarkAchArya says VRndAvan is the expansion of ONE AtmA.

It also touches on our favourite - "bhunkte bhUteshu tadguNAn" SB1.2.33
that points to existence of multiple tattva - VishNu, shakti (various aspects), and jiva tattvas where jiva is a minor form of His parA shakti.
but they are ALL HIS shaktis and HIS doing, it is a spread of HIS OWN shakti and HIS OWN VARIEGATEDNESS. WHO is playing the roles? HE is.


So, YogamAyA (DurgA) will always be at the Lotus Feet of Her Source, NArAyaNa

yA devi sarva-bhUteshu vishNu-mAyeti shabditA
namastasyai namastasyai namastasyai namo namah:

But they are one big heavily BONDED family, and VishNu revers His own mAyA devi just the same. Sister.

WARNING: An upcoming volcanic explosion follows...

In Bramhavaivarta purAN (a rAjasic purAN, yes), Shiva asks PArvati to worship KRshNa the SUpreme Bramhan to fulfill Her wishes. KRshNa hears her prayers and comes to Her Kailash-door disguised as an ascetic. He knows what she is looking for, so He agrees to appear as Her son, GaNesh.

Then, other Shaiva purAN state that GaNesh was present during the wedding of Shiva and PArvati. He was playing the same vighna-hartA role there too...

(I warned you of the volcano, now I am out of here)


Ananda-chinmaya-rasa-pratibhAvitAbhis
tAbhir ya eva nija-rUpataya kalAbhih
goloka eve nivAsaty akhilAtma-bhUto
govindam Adi-purusham tam aham bhajAmi ~ (Br. SaMhita 5.37)
_/\_
om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya ~

[philosoraptor]

That is precisely what it is once jnAna appears, because He is ALL there is...
and yet... there are roles to play ... roles to play ... oh the roles must be played, but moreover, it is our intrinsic nature to play them. The Gop-Gopis will always be so, KRshNa will always be their KanhaiyA. NimbarkAchArya says VRndAvan is the expansion of ONE AtmA.

Yes, He is all there is, when you consider that He wears both the jIva-s and prakRiti as a second body (or, as you prefer, that He has jIva-s and prakRiti as His separate shakti-s). Thus, He can be spoken of in association with His different prakRiti-s (as, for example, when it is stated that brahman only exists), or in distinction from His prakRiti-s (as, for example, when it is stated that brahman is the creator of all this, pervader of all this, or beyond all this).

However, that does not change the fact that the jIva-s who are deva-s are different and distinct from Him. Thus, I fail to see how one text saying A worships B and another text saying B worships A is actually meant to indicate that A = B. The conclusion A=B does not reconcile conclusions A>B or B>A.

The underlying oneness that exists should not confuse these basic facts. jIva-s are not equal to Him, even if they be in the bodies of deva-s. When Hari appears as a deva, this is merely a vesha - He still maintains His unequivocal supremacy at all times. Thus, for Him to be at any time subordinate to another deva is simply not possible, and such an interpretation cannot be maintained.



WARNING: An upcoming volcanic explosion follows...

In Bramhavaivarta purAN (a rAjasic purAN, yes), Shiva asks PArvati to worship KRshNa the SUpreme Bramhan to fulfill Her wishes. KRshNa hears her prayers and comes to Her Kailash-door disguised as an ascetic. He knows what she is looking for, so He agrees to appear as Her son, GaNesh.

Then, other Shaiva purAN state that GaNesh was present during the wedding of Shiva and PArvati. He was playing the same vighna-hartA role there too...

(I warned you of the volcano, now I am out of here)


Not so much a volcano for me. In our smArtha community, gaNesha pUja is done every year, and I can tell you for a fact that they do not consider gaNesha to be an avatAra of kRiShNa. Neither is such a view upheld by any vaiShNava-s with whom I am familiar, your own tradition included. That being said, I would like to know where this is explicitly stated in brahma-vaivarta purANa (I have the entire text and would like to look up the verse). I can't help but wonder if His appearing as gaNesha (assuming it actually says that), isn't meant to be understood in the same sense as other verses like "He appears as the universe," "He appears as the deva-s," "He appears as the guru," etc.

regards,

[smaranam]

praNAm

Neither is such a view upheld by any vaiShNava-s with whom I am familiar, your own tradition included.
which is...? Do I have one really? I may have KRshNa and Guru but tradition? (I know you meant GauDiya VaishNav).


That being said, I would like to know where this is explicitly stated in brahma-vaivarta purANa (I have the entire text and would like to look up the verse).
Great. I have an abridged 230 page B.V.P.
It is in GANAPATI KHANDA, Chapters
-- Shankar (Shiva)'s prayers
-- GaNEsh Janma (Appearance of GaNesh)

In the book, the chapters are numbered continuously through khanDas i.e. a new KhanDa does not begin with chapter 1.
So, these are chapter 33 and 34 from the start, but I don't think that will help.

If you are interested, there is also RAdhA-GaNesh saMvAda (conversation) chapter 61, Shri KRshNa KhanDa.

_/\_

[charitra]

God has made men with different mental capacities and attitudes. God assumes various forms congenial to the respective mental predilections, in order that each may worship a desired deity and come to a good end. That is why the Supreme Paramatma takes many forms as deities.

Each one of us have an unshakeable faith in his chosen deity. S/he should be convinced that her/his deity is the supreme and ultimate Godhead and nothing can be above it. That is why in each manifestation, god shows himself as superior to the rest. The others are shown worshipping the particular one and getting defeated in a coflict.

Does this not reconcile the inconsistency of one God worshipping the others at one time and in turn getting worshipped by others in different times, of defeating all others at one time and getting defeated by each other one of all too.

The shaiva puranas are merely collections of these stories where shiva's supremacy alone is shown. The vaishnava puranas would be a compilation of incidents which glotify vishnu to the subordination of others. So also in the other puranas.

Thus , the intention is not to run down any particular deity. The object is to glorify the God of one's choice so that he devotee's attention may converge on the aspect of manifestation of God to the exclusion of others. This is called Ananya bhakti or undivided devotion. The aim is to glorify a particular deity and heighten the devotion to the same deity and not to vilify the others. This is called 'naahi nindaa nyaya' .

For all those who regard all creation as varying manifestations of a single Paramatma, there is no need to have 'ananya bhakti'. The question of turning from one god to the other can arise only if one god is different from another. If it is understood that the many forms are the manifestations of a single Entity, all the puranas will become sporting activities ( leela vinoda) of the Entity assuming different diverting forms. If it is understood that asingle entity play-acts as many, so that the people with varying mental make-up could find satisfaction, then it would be possible not only to enjoy the apparent contradiction in them but also develop their devotion.

There is another reason too, which is setting an example to people. Chastity should thrive in the world. Therefore, the Goddess Amba must show the way by her example. Therefore although she is undisputedly the super shakti, she has to accept the subordinate role of a wife in relation to her husband. Devotion should spread in the world for which lord should set an example. That is why in some stories Vishnu become the devotee and worships Siva. In some other cases Siva worships Vishnu. Therefore, the apparent contradiction in the Puranas, which contain stories now extolling one deity and and now another should be taken as an attempt to impress on us the greatness of a particular deityso that we can whole-heartedly direct our devotion towards it.

Referencing to a particular god as though it were a minor deity is in fact not meant as criticism or insult at all. It is done so that the spotlight may fall on the other one and the devotee may take a firm hold of that aspect.

ONE AS MANY
The same Paramatma manifests as different deities. Each devotee develops a particular attachment to a particular form of God. In order to strengthen such attachment of each devotee, the paramatma subordinatess a particular quality at some time in preference to another and emphasises a particular aspect. (to be continued)

[philosoraptor]

So if I have unshakable faith that my desert deity who demands jihad is God, then does that make it so?

And if not, then can we safely say that unshakable faith in a deity is insufficient evidence to attest to that deity's identity as a Supreme Deity?

[brahma jijnasa]

Namaste

If you view the Vedas in isolation, a case can easily be made that all gods are the same.

What do you mean?

regards

[Amrut]

Namaste


What do you mean?

regards


Namaste,

While I am not speaking for Omkara, I should say that in Panchdev Puja, all 5 deities are worshipped as 'Supreme Personality of Godhead' :)

The reference is found in Atharvaveda's Atharvashirsha-s e.g. GaNpatyatharvaSirSa, DaivyatharvaSirSa, etc

We also have atharvaSiras Upanishad which extols Rudra (Shiva) as the supreme, the one, there is no second.

MahAnArAyaNa upanishad also has hymms praising Ganapati, Maa Uma Devi, Vishnu (NarAyaNa), Rudra, Kartikeya, Brahma, etc. Maha. Na. Up. Also praises Brahma as supreme Godhead.

There are prayers dedicated to NArAyaNa, while later verses are dedicated to Rudra, each glorifying deity a supreme. Later, it is said that Sanyasa i.e. path of renunciation is described as the best than path of karma and one is advised to meditate on OM, which is nirAkAra.

In Maha. Na. Up. If we see the trend that first there is creation, then God enters into being, then stutis, glorifications (which comes under karma kand), then retraction of Karma kand, saying that sanyAsa is the best, and then meditation on OM is advised. Even Sv. Up. 3.8 says the same. this would mean that SaguNa Brahman is manifestation of NirguNa Brahman, hence they all are equal. But they are not under mAyA's control. they are mAyApati - controller of mAyA and hence they are and lord over entire creation. when passive, same Brahman is NirguNa.

Krishna, Shiva and Ganesha are connected with OM. OM is mentioned in most of principle upanishad-s while it is also mentioned in Kaivalya Upanishad.

In in the looooong Intro on Sv. Up. Shankara Bhasya, we find reference of Kaiv. Up. 3 and various other purANa-s like Ling, Vishnudharmottara, Shivadharmottara, Vishnu PurANa.

Looong intro and mentioning of various purANa-s is one of the reason that authorship of Adi Shankara is disputed. VarttikAkAra (SureshwarAchArya) has only mentioned Adi Shankara commenting on 10 upanishads. Paramacharya and Swami Sacchidanandendra of Shringeri Math also believe that Adi Shankara has commented on 10 upanishads.

But if we accept works of other advaitins, then even the commentary written by later Shankaracharya can be considered to be useful and the very mention of Kaiv. Up. means that this Upanishad is not fake.

Sv. Up. is also called shaiva Upanishad, as it praises Rudra.

PurANa-s also mention unity of Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesh is found in Sm. Bhagavat 10.14.9. Padma PurANa also contains verses (I do not remember exact verse no), which says there is no difference between, Brahma, Vishnu, Rudra, Kali, etc.

In Kurma PurANa, while explaining the creation, 4.6-12 explains that creation sprung from Brahman and Vishnu himself praises Shiva as creator, Preserver and Destroyer and later on Krishna is said to take Initiation from Upamanyu and meditated on Shiva. This part is not liked by Vaishnava-s. But when Shiva pleased with devotion, appears in front of Krishna, Lord says, ' you are verily Vishnu, what is it that you cannot achieve'. Krishna says that 'I want a son like you'

While explaining creation, Vishnu clarified that Brahma was present during first creation and then in every subsequent creation, he reborn himself through naval of Vishnu.

In Linga Purana, there is a story when Vishnu was worshipping Shiva and offering 1000 lotus flowers. Shiva in order to test devotion, hide one flower. Vishnu when realised that one flower is short, he offered his eye (as he is called kamal-nayanam). Shiva was pleased and restored his eye (some say, Shiva did not allow Vishnu to remove his eye), and in return blessed Vishnu that he will always remember Shiva.

There is an incidence in Linga Purana in which Shiva in form of Light was beginingless and endless.

Vaishnava purana-s will praise Vishnu and say he is the creator.

This would mean that all forms of Gods are equal, as in Rg Veda 1.164.46

"ekam sad vipra bahudha vadanti agnim yamam matariswanam ahuh" meaning Truth is One, but the learned refer to it in different names like agni, yama, matariswan

We are free to have our own opinion. I believe that all forms of God are equal.

Paramcharya also says the same in the book Hindu Dharma

Refer Part 14: Puranas (http://kamakoti.org/newlayout/template/hindudharma.html/14/1/hindu/Puranas)


Check

Why Differences among the Gods ? (http://kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part14/chap9.htm)

The One as Many (http://kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part14/chap10.htm)

Paramacharya says


Each Purana is in the main devoted to a particular devata. In the Siva Purana it is stated: "Siva is the Supreme Being. He is the highest authority for creation, sustenance and dissolution. It is at his behest, and under him, that Visnu funtions as protector. Visnu is a mere bhogin, trapped in Maya. Siva is a yogin and jnana incarnate. Visnu is subject to Siva and worships him. Once when he opposed Siva he suffered humiliation at his hands". Stories are told to illustrate such assertions.

In the Vaisnava Puranas you see the reverse. They contain stories to support the view that Visnu is superior to Siva. "Is Siva a god, he who dwells in the burning grounds with spirits and goblins for company? " these Puranas ask.

In each Purana thus a particular deity is exalted over others. It may be Subrahmanya, Ganapati or Surya. Each such deity is declared to be the Supreme God and all others are said to worship him. When, out of pride, they refuse to worship him they are humbled.

Doubts arise in our minds about such contradictory accounts. "Which of these stories is true? " we are inclined to ask. "And which is false? They cannot all of them be true. If Siva worships Visnu, how does it stand to reason that Visnu should adore Siva? If Amba is superior to the Trimurti (Brahma, Visnu and Mahesvara), how is it right to say that she remains submissive to Parameswara as his devoted consort? The Puranas cannot all of them be true. Or are they all lies? "

Later on Paramacharya says,


To sum up, if a deity is glorified in the Puranas, and stories told in support of it, it is to create exclusive devotion to him as the Paramatman. And, if any god is potrayed as inferior to another, the true purpose of it is not to denigrate him but to develop unflinching faith in the latter.

Hari OM

[Omkara]

Namaste


What do you mean?

regards


I mean that if the Vedas are looked at in isolation without taking into consideration the puranas then one can convincingly argue that all gods are the same.Of course, this is the wrong way of looking at them according to vedanta.

But the other astika darshanas do not accept the puranas and itihasas. Nyaya and Vaisheshika darshana, for example take all the names denoting the devas to refer to a single formless supreme being and do not beleive in the separate existence of devas. I was merely agreeing to Dr.Long's statement that "all gods are the same" is also a valid hindu view.

[Amrut]

Namaste,

Those who site 'anya devata' verse from BG 9.25, we have Shiva Gita chapter 7 in which Lord shiva pulls all the devata-s inside him

My majesty cannot be perceived through physical eyes either by human beings or by celestial beings without My grace. 11

Suta said:

Having said thus, the Lord blessed him (Rāma) with divine vision. Then he (Rāma) saw the form of the Lord resembling subterranean fire. 12

Seeing that (form) luminous like millions of lightening flashes and striking intense terror even among the brave, Rāma in sheer fright, collapsed on his knees to the ground. Rāma, the dauntless hero, fell prostrate on the ground and again and again praising (the Lord) then rising, looked as far as he could. Rāma saw the form of the Lord, the Destroyer of Tripura, with sidereal universes inside it looking like she-sparrows, in constellations of luminous blaze. 13-15

He saw (within the form of the Lord) the mountains like Meru, Mandara and Vindhyā, the seven seas, the sun and the moon, the Gods and the five elements. 16

The son of Daśaratha beheld the forests, the holy mountains, the fourteen worlds and the entire cosmic expanse. He saw the battles between the Devas and the Asuras; those born and yet to be born; the ten incarnations of Viṣṇu and the His sports in those incarnations. 17

O dvijas, He saw the defeat of the Devas, the burning of Tripura and the extinction of all that is born and yet to be born. Beholding all this, Rāma filled with fear, prostrated again and again. (At this point) true wisdom dawned on Raghunandana (Rāma), and he extolled Śankara with meaningful hymns that contain the very essence of the Upanishads18-21

source (http://shivadarshana.blogspot.in/2007/08/rmad-iva-gt_16.html)

Chapter 10 (jiva - nirupana) deals with unity between jiva and Shiva

An advaitin had also written bhasya on Shiva Gita, which occurs in Padma Purana and referred by Sadashiva Brahmendra of Kanchi Kamakoti Math.

EDIT:


Sri Abhinava Nrisimha Bharati has written a wonderful Sanskrit commentary on Shiva Gita.

source (http://www.kamakotimandali.com/sringeri/sharadapeetham.html)
Aum

[Omkara]

Namaste,

Those who site 'anya devata' verse from BG 9.25,

You might be interested in reading Abhinavagupta's interpretation of that verse.

[Amrut]

Pranams


You might be interested in reading Abhinavagupta's interpretation of that verse.

:D I am beginning to like this man - nice pointer

Gitartha Sangraha pg: 220-221 (http://www.scribd.com/doc/120824389/Abhinava-Gupta-Bhagwad-Gita)

or

Gita Super Site: Node 20 (http://202.3.77.102/acquia/?q=node/20)

OM Namah Shivaya

[smaranam]

take all the names denoting the devas to refer to a single formless supreme being and do not beleive in the separate existence of devas.
Yes, It is the same Supreme Bramhan playing around in different forms.
Bramhan can hide whatever and reveal whatever.
Its the SAME ParaBramhan :)
- not that ParaBramhan cares.

For the Supreme Bramhan, that is person-impersonal-impersonal-person, to care would make the ahamkAr necessary. There is no ego here. So one Vs another will never work, because it is the SAME Adi Purusha playing. Laughing, laughing and laughing. The one who positions Him is also His creation, so just a doll anyway.

Moral of the story: Keep the butter away. Don't get fooled, but that's upto you.

GovindA Go ~ vin ~ dA, GovindA GovindA

[smaranam]

Next time one runs into a deva/devi devatA, they should challenge them. Peer deep into the deva's heart and soul using laser-consciousness, so much that you hit the ParaBramhan Parameshwar ParamAtmA and that is ALL you see.

Do that with each creature.

Always keep freshly churned butter ready (just kidding)

GovindA Go ~ vin ~ dA, GovindA GovindA

[philosoraptor]

I mean that if the Vedas are looked at in isolation without taking into consideration the puranas then one can convincingly argue that all gods are the same.Of course, this is the wrong way of looking at them according to vedanta.

But the other astika darshanas do not accept the puranas and itihasas. Nyaya and Vaisheshika darshana, for example take all the names denoting the devas to refer to a single formless supreme being and do not beleive in the separate existence of devas. I was merely agreeing to Dr.Long's statement that "all gods are the same" is also a valid hindu view.

Even the Upanishads and Brahmanas contain information pointing to the hierarchy of devas, their creation by Brahman, etc. I assume that by "Vedas" you are referring to the saMhitA-s only.

[philosoraptor]

Namaste,

Those who site 'anya devata' verse from BG 9.25, we have Shiva Gita chapter 7 in which Lord shiva pulls all the devata-s inside him


Shiva Gita is not part of the prasthAna-trayi for any major vedAnta school.

[philosoraptor]

Namaste,

While I am not speaking for Omkara, I should say that in Panchdev Puja, all 5 deities are worshipped as 'Supreme Personality of Godhead' :)

The reference is found in Atharvaveda's Atharvashirsha-s e.g. GaNpatyatharvaSirSa, DaivyatharvaSirSa, etc

What is the authority of this source? I am not clear on what the Atharvashirsha-s are in this context. It does not appear to be a name of any of the commonly listed shAkha-s of the AV.

And do you have an exact quote?



We also have atharvaSiras Upanishad which extols Rudra (Shiva) as the supreme, the one, there is no second.

And in which traditions is the atharvaSiras upaniShad accepted as genuine shruti?



MahAnArAyaNa upanishad also has hymms praising Ganapati, Maa Uma Devi, Vishnu (NarAyaNa), Rudra, Kartikeya, Brahma, etc. Maha. Na. Up. Also praises Brahma as supreme Godhead.

I studied both the Andhra and draviDa recensions of the MNU, and I just reviewed those mantras a few days ago (the ones alluded to by you above). While they do praise gaNapati, uma, and so on, they do not describe these deities as Supreme Gods.



There are prayers dedicated to NArAyaNa, while later verses are dedicated to Rudra, each glorifying deity a supreme. Later, it is said that Sanyasa i.e. path of renunciation is described as the best than path of karma and one is advised to meditate on OM, which is nirAkAra.

nArAyaNa and rudra are depicted as different beings in the purANa-s, with the mahAbhArata, the bhAgavata purANa, and the viShNu purANa all describing rudra as the mind-born son of brahmA. bhAgavata purANa depicts the bewilderment of rudra by viShNu in His mohinI form, and repeatedly states that rudra meditates on viShNu in multiple places. Similar view is held by varAha purANa, which describes brahmA, shiva, and viShNu as the three supreme entities in this world, but then goes on to elevate viShNu as being the highest of the three. Hence, unless we are prepared to reject these sources, it would not be logical to suggest that the rudra being depicted as a supreme deity in the MNU is anyone other than nArAyaNa - nArAyaNa being a proper noun which only refers to the Lord of shrI, and the MNU specifically equates Him to the parama puruSha of the puruSha-sukta with countless limbs.

sahasrashIrShaM devaM vishvAkShaM vishvashambhuvam |
vishvaM nArAyaNaM devamakSharaM paramaM prabhum || MNU(dp) 90 ||
"The Lord Who has a thousand heads, Who has His eyes everywhere, Who works out the good of all the worlds, Who is the immutable and the Supreme Lord, Who is the bestower of the fruits of all the deeds, is nArAyaNa Who is all this universe." (mahAnArAyaNa upaniShad, draviDa-pATha, 90 - NSAR)

vishvataH paramaM nityaM vishvaM nArAyaNaM harim |
vishvamedevaM puruShastadvishvamupajIvati || MNU(dp) 91 ||
"He is the most supreme and the eternal on account of His being in everything. This universe is nArAyaNa, hari. All this universe is puruSha alone. This universe lives on account of that puruSha." (mahAnArAyaNa upaniShad, draviDa-pATha, 91 - NSAR)

patiM vishvasyAtmeshvaraM shAshvataM shivamachyutam |
nArAyaNaM mahAj~neyaM vishvAtmAnaM parAyaNam || MNU (dp) 92 ||
"nArAyaNa is the master of the universe. This paramAtman is the ruler of Himself. He is the eternally auspicious and He is achyuta or unchanging. This nArAyaNa is the highest object to be known. He is the innerself of all. He is the supreme object of attainment or the highest goal." (mahAnArAyaNa upaniShad, draviDa-pATha, 92 - NSAR)

nArAyaNa paraM brahma tattvaM nArAyaNaH paraH |
nArAyaNa paro jyotirAtmA nArAyaNaH paraH || MNU (dp) 93 (ap) 13.4 ||
"nArAyaNa is the Supreme Brahman. nArAyaNa is the Supreme Reality. nArAyaNa is the Supreme Light. nArAyaNa is the Supreme Self." (mahAnArAyaNa upaniShad, draviDa-pATha 93 - NSAR)

yachcha ki~nchijjagatyasmin dR^ishyate shrUyate'pi vA |
antarbahishcha tat sarvaM vyApya nArAyaNaH sthitaH || MNU (dp) 94 (ap) 13.5 ||
"Whatsover object is seen or heard in this world, nArAyaNa resides pervading all those objects within and without." (mahAnArAyaNa upaniShad, draviDa-pATha, 94 - NSAR)



Vaishnava purana-s will praise Vishnu and say he is the creator.

That is true. However, praise of Vishnu as a supreme deity is found even in non-Vaishnava purANa-s.



This would mean that all forms of Gods are equal, as in Rg Veda 1.164.46

"ekam sad vipra bahudha vadanti agnim yamam matariswanam ahuh" meaning Truth is One, but the learned refer to it in different names like agni, yama, matariswan

Strictly speaking, this does not say that all gods are same. It only says that the one Father has many names, which include the names of various deva-s.



We are free to have our own opinion. I believe that all forms of God are equal.

Statement "all forms of God are equal" is redundant and not informative. It also is not the issue here. The issue here is whether are all deva-s are really the same brahman. As you have quoted RV 1.164.46 to suggest that they are, I should point out that you are ignoring other sources, like kena upaniShad, aitareya brAhmaNa, etc which clearly depict the deva-s as different from and dependent on Brahman.

There is no inconsistency here if one understands that the names of the deva-s are also names of brahman.

regards,

[Omkara]

Even the Upanishads and Brahmanas contain information pointing to the hierarchy of devas, their creation by Brahman, etc. I assume that by "Vedas" you are referring to the saMhitA-s only.

The Nyaya-Vaisheshika tradition which I was referring to does accept only the Samahitas, as far as I can make out. However, the upanishads and brahmanas are not incompatible with this worldview. Decas in the shruti can represent many things depending on context. In some places they represent organs of the body, eg. Indra represents the jivatman, Vayu represents Prana,Surya represents Buddhi, Chandra represents Manas etc.

The devas can also symbolically represent the areas of the universe they rule, eg. The stars, the sky, the moon etc.

There are various such esoteric meanings which are employed to interpret shruti in some places even by Vedantists. It is not a stretch to interpret all of Shruti in such terms.

Kena upanishad can be intetpreted in other ways, for eg. Vayu, Agni and Indra represent the sense organs they preside over, and thus the upanishad teaches the inability of the senses to comprehend Brahman.
Alternatively Agni can represent the karma kanda, Vayu the control of Prana, etc. and the upanishad teaches that all these methods can help us reach Brahman only with the aid of Uma Haimavati.

Re. Aitareya Brahmana you will notice that just a few lines below the famous "Agni is the lowest of the devas and Vishnu is the highest" you will notice it says "Agni is all the devas, Vishnu is all the devas".
Considering AB 1.1 in terms of rank of the devas contradicts Kena Upanishad which says Indra, Vayu and Agni are greater than all other devas.

You can see Sayanacharya's explanation of AB 1.1 for a sensible explanqtion that does not involve heirarchy.

Keep in mind that my views on this are well known and agree mostly with yours. I am just saying a sensible paradigm on this basis can be constructed.

[Omkara]

What is the authority of this source? I am not clear on what the Atharvashirsha-s are in this context. It does not appear to be a name of any of the commonly listed shAkha-s of the AV.

Atharvashiras is a non extant shakha of the Atharvaveda. There are several upanishads claiming to belong to this shakha but there is only one authentic one which is accepted by all vedantists. I have posted it in full on my 'Lord Shiva in the Vedas' thread.



And in which traditions is the atharvaSiras upaniShad accepted as genuine shruti?

All vedantic traditions do. In this Upanishad, Rudra tells the devas that he is the Antaryamin, that he pervades everything, etc.
Ramanujacharya and Madhvacharya come up with a very convuted explanation for this. The problem is, the same reasoning can be applied to the Bhagavad Gita.



That is true. However, praise of Vishnu as a supreme deity is found even in non-Vaishnava purANa-s.


And vice versa. Just sayin'.

[Amrut]

Shiva Gita is not part of the prasthAna-trayi for any major vedAnta school.

Namaste :)

Brother, when purANa-s are directly quoted to explain deva supremacy and are elevated or are considered as 5th veda, then why is it that a part of Padma Purana, i.e. Shiva Gita cannot be considered as authentic. Why would an advaitin write a commentary on Shiva Gita if it is not important?

PrasthAntrayi

In Prasthantraiyi there is no mention of veda-s (Samhita-s and BrahmaNa-s - Vedanta contradicts karma-kand), no mention of purANa-s and itihAsa-s, but Adi Shankara has written commentary on Sanat SujAtiyA. Since he has written commentary, he should have mentioned it separately that one should study Sanata SujAtiya, else he would not have bothered to write a commentary if itihAsa is not important or not a part of formal study. sAyanAchArya has written commentary on all veda-s.

Even today, Shankaracharya-s give discourses on PuraNa-s and on Rama Katha and Krishna Lila (generally, it's Rama Katha and Krishna Lila :), as interpreting the events literally, though at times they would also explain symbolism (as by Sri Mahamandaleshwar Avadheshananda Giri ji Maharaj, who was once a Shankaracharya of Dwarka Math, self-retired).

PrasthAntrayi is compulsory to get full understanding. It does not mean, anything else has to be discarded. This would mean that independent grantha-s like PanchAdasi, Naishkarmya siddhi, Atma Vidya Vilas (by SadaSiva Brahmendra of Kamakoti Peetham), and works of Madhusudana Saraswati should be rejected. Prasthantrayi is compulsory, others works are helpful, but are optional. they are not forbidden to study.

Karma-kand POV and Vedanta POV

I am not arguing that there is no deva supremacy. DevatA-s are a higher yoni than manushya yoni. They are separate beings. But they are at times explained as supreme in the sense that they know Brahman, like Indra knew Brahman after 101 years of meditation.

There is difference between devata-s and Ishvara. I have already quoted Paramacharya, saying 'one God as many'. As far as advaita is considered, we believe that all forms of Ishvara are same, but appear differently, else why would one praise a deity who does all three type of works - creation, preservation and destruction in one purANa and other deity in another PurANa. Like you have said, Vishnu is praised in non-vaishnava, Shiva is given 'Supreme Godhead' status in kurma PurANa, which is a Tamasic PurANa. *Edited

From vyavarArika POV or as far as karma kand is concerned, devata-s are different entities, each given specific tasks and have specific powers, benefits of chanting their names are also mentioned. But when it comes to renunciation, contradictory statements are made. Some even say that they are a part or energy centers in Human body. Yogis also talk about symbolism

Symbolism

Kriya Yogis have written books like Each Human body is Bhagavad Gita (http://www.kriya.org/store_product_detail.php?id=13#) and Bhagavad Gita in Light of Kriya Yoga (http://www.prajnanamission.org/BooksJournals.shtml), both by by Paramhansa Hariharananda.

YudhiSthira - Akash Tatva -one who remains stable in war like Akash (stable mind)
Bhima - Wind - One who is strong like wind
Arjuna - Agni, Jiva - furious like fire
Nakula - water - cool, peaceful
Sahadeva - Earth, ?
Krishna - Paramatma

Regarding MNU, I will check again with sanskrit verses. It will take some time. I think someone has taken copy and not returned it back.

All I was pointing was that one upanishad like MN. Up and Sv. Up. mention Rudra and Vishnu as supreme. There are other upanishad-s which exclusively glorify one deity. Like Man. Up. praises Shiva and OM, while Katha Up. says Vishnu is supreme.

Regarding Atharvashiras, I have a book from Gita Press, but will have to find out. I will type exact quotes. Please give me some more time.

To sum up, from karma-kand, POV, each devata and Ishvara is separate identity and has special powers and responsibility. But Advaita POV, different forms of Ishvara are same and have equal capacity. Different forms I would include are - Shiva Family, Shakti (includes all female forms of goddesses, Saraswati, Amba, Laxmi), Ganapati, Kartikeya, Vishnu and all his avatars, Brahma.

MAnas putra-s of Brahma are not considered as Ishvara. Sons of Rama and Krishna are nor worshipped as Ishvara. It is only Sons of Shiva are worshipped as Ishvara

Anya devatA-s ;) are different.

If we see the verse

यान्ति देवव्रता देवान् पितृ़न्यान्ति पितृव्रताः।

भूतानि यान्ति भूतेज्या यान्ति मद्याजिनोऽपि माम्।।9.25।।

It has words deva vrata, which means religious observations or simply karma-kand or kAmya karma for personal or universal benefit. This is what Adi Shankara has mentioned in his bhAshya.

I will not dig to much deep, as it would start another debate.

Whatever I have said is my general observation after my limited study. Both you and Omkara are more knowledgeable and well-versed in Sanskrit.

Random Logic with a-priori - just a personal opinion - no quarrels please:)

Just for e.g. if I take krishna worshipping Shiva smearing ash and Vishnu worshipping Shiva and offering one of his eye then from this POV, I can say that it is Shiva who is speaking through Krishna. If we take Anu Gita as authentic, then Krishna established himself in Brahman through Yoga then spoke Gita. If we take Shiva is Brahman, SAntam shivam Advaitam, then it is Shiva who was speaking through Krishna. Krishna in BG and Uttara Gita walks about surrendering to Mahadeva. I will thing in such a way because to me, Shiva is THE SUPREME GODHEAD. If I think both Shiv and Krishna are supreme, are same, but appear as different as they do different work, then I will keep things as they are and still be one-pointedly devoted to Shiva and BG will be of great help to me.

In this context, I will accept veda-s, vedanta and purANa-s fully, but will practice only a part. Shiva is enough to me, I do not need to go anywhere - this is the intention when Moksha is the only goal of life. But if mind has too many desires then one has to follow karma-kand and worship each deity as separate entity, else no point of protecting samhitA-s and brAhmaNa-s. If capable, I will also protect whole veda-s and not just parts of my interest i.e. only parts concerned with worship of my personal deity. I will chant mantra-s in full faith, and not just mechanically, be it praising Krishna or Shiva. But when doing japa, I will do nama-japa of only and only one deity i.e. Shiva if I am a Shaiva or Shiva bhakta in general. word 'respect' is better than 'accept'.

Rigidity

I have seen Vaishnava-s that they
Do not accept prasad of any other deity.
Maharaj (priest) say - do not go to Shiva mandir, that kapAli lives in cremation ground, has nothing to offer - this is true
Are mechanically present at religious ceremonies like Ganesh Chaturthi or NavarAtri.Now the extreme -->

In gujarati, the word for stitching cloth is 'sivavu' (ci-v-vu = to stitch). Since this sounds similar to Shiv, there are Vaishnava-s who would not speak 'sivavu or sivaDAvavu - to get it stitched), they use 'sAndhavu', another word meaning 'to stitch'

One of my nephew's school friend till 3rd-4th grade did not see photo of Ganesh and AmbA Maa!!! Only after movie BAl Ganesh and after participating in some school competition or drAmA, he came to know that there is such a God called Ganesh.

Are these two things justified?

They reply, we follow instruction manual. I say, it is 'forbidden' or 'not required' ? No answer

Rigidity stops spiritual progress. it is negative quality. One-pointedness is not rigidity. It has the factor of neutrality.

I think that each devata is worthy of respect and so is each form of Ishvara. A Shaiva may not worship Krishna, but one-pointedness is not broken if one accepts prasad of Krishna. after all, it cleanses our chitta. I may not initiate any religious observance like Ganesh chaturthi or Navaratri, but when invited, i see no harm to be present and accept prasad. It is what we take initiative is important.

Nama Japa

If I chant both Rama nama and Shiva nama, then which mantra will continue in my mind. I chant OM daily, even after I stop writing this article or take a pause and just be aware, OM automatically pops up. but if I chant names of 2 or more deities, then there will be mess. Mantra roughly means the protection by repetition. It is like charging mobile for may be an hour ad the charge stays on for the whole day. Similarly mantra continues in mind even if I am fully concentrating in any office work. Immediately after I finish work, mantra pops up again like a song which we last listen before stepping out of our house.

If I am concerned only with one deity and refuse other deities, then what will happen to our samhitA-s and brAhmaNa-s? In this context, why would I take interest in reviving a thing which I do not believe? I will say, it is not my business.

Philosoraptor ji, you are much more knowledgeable than me. Honestly say, did you not find even a single verse praising Shiv as supreme?

If you say Yes, in unbiased way, I know you are very sincere*, then we will end it here. If you would maintain same conclusion about the final goal of veda-s, then too we will stop here :)

Namah Shivaya

*conditions apply

[Sri Vaishnava]

Atharvashiras is a non extant shakha of the Atharvaveda.......
Ramanujacharya and Madhvacharya come up with a very convuted explanation for this. The problem is, the same reasoning can be applied to the Bhagavad Gita.

There is nothing convoluted about the explanation. For that matter, Prahlada says the same things in the Vishnu Purana. Ready to accept Prahlada is the creator and destroyer of all and the Lord of all beings? After all, if atharvasiras is taken literally, the same reasoning must be applied here.

Indra also says the same thing in pratardhana vidyA. So does rishi vAmadeva in the Br.Up.

In the Gita, the vibhUti yOgA and vishvarUpa yOgA, as well as key statements in chapters 7-12 prove that the speaker is Brahman and not merely a realised person. Indeed, the Gita is compared to a sugarcane by acharyas where the middle part (7-12 chap) is sweeter than the rest.

The answer to the conundrum of the 18 purAnAs and the Rudra mantras in the mahAnArAyaNa upanishad as well as svetAsvatArA is provided in this blog. People are free to debate and leave their comments there.

http://narayanastra.blogspot.ae/

Note, I am not obsessed in promoting my friend's blog, but only because the same discussions were brought up here. Philosoraptor may find some new articles of interest to him there. Also if you are interested, it would be good to read the comments left there for each article as well - some people have had interesting things to say.

EDIT: And of course, as this is a shaiva forum, I have absolutely no problem if people here disagree with vaishnavas.

[hinduism♥krishna]

Namaste, all of you.
I fully support amrit's views.

Did shiva worship Krishna or Krishna worship shiva ? I really don't understand from this what we are going to conclude? If Shiva worships Krishna, then shiv is supreme or if Krishna worships shiv, then Krishna is supreme?

Both Krishna and shiv are one. They don't have a single difference. Lord Krishna was a devotee of shankara. He praised shankara many times as a Supreme being, bramhan. Similarly, lord shiva is also a devotee Krishna. He worships krishna as supreme bramhan.
They don't worship anything else other than self bramh. The self is worshipped by self.

I have given what lord Krishna said to shiva in #61 post.

Take a look what lord Krishna and bhishma said about lord shiva in " bhishma gita from Mahabharata ".

Bhishma said:

I am quite incompetent to recite of virtues of Mahadeva of the highest intelligence. He pervades all things in the universe, and yet is not seen anywhere. He is the creator of the universal self. All the deities from Brahma downwards adore and worship Him. He transcends both Prakrti and Purusa. He is indestructible and the Supreme Brahman.
He is both existent and non-existent. Agitating both Prakrti and Purusa by means of His energy, He created the universal lord of creatures – Brahma. Who is there competent to tell the virtues of that God of gods that is endued with supreme intelligence?
Only Narayana, 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 Visnu as he pervades the universe. He is irresistible. He is possessed of supreme Energy. He is omniscient because of Yoga. It is in consequence of the devotion of the high-souled Krisna to Mahadeva whom he gratified.
In every new Yuga has Krisna, by penances, gratified Mahadeva. Only Krisna has seen with his eyes the great puissance of the high-souled Mahadeva – that original cause of the universe. Oh Bharata! I do not behold anyone superior to Mahadeva. To expound the names of that God of gods fully and without creating the desire of hearing more, only Krisna is competent. Verily, only he is able to discourse on the puissance, in its entirety, of the Supreme Deity.

Vasudeva said:
All the deities are incompetent to understand the course of Mahadeva’s acts truly and in all their details. He is the end which all righteous people attain. The very Adityas who are endued with subtle sight are unable to behold His abode. How can one that is merely a man comprehend Sambhu whom the senses cannot comprehend, for Sambhu dwells in the firmament of the heart and cannot be seen, but by the internal vision that yoga supplies. I shall, therefore, truly recite to you some of the attributes of that illustrious slayer of asuras who is regarded as the lord of all sacrifices and vows.

Vasudeva continued :
This hymn (stated to have been composed by the Rishi Tandin) relates to Him who is the Veda of the Vedas, and the most ancient of all ancient objects; to Him who is the energy of all energies, and the penance of all penances; to Him who is the most tranquil of all creatures endued with tranquility, and who is the splendour of all splendours; to Him who is looked upon as the most restrained of all creatures that are restrained, and Him who is the intelligence of all creatures endued with intelligence; to Him who is looked upon as the deity of all deities, and the Rishi of all Rishis; to Him who is regarded as the sacrifice of all sacrifices and the most auspicious of all things fraught with auspiciousness; to Him who is the Rudra of all Rudras and the effulgence of all things endued with effulgence; to Him who is the Yogi of all yogis, and the cause of all causes; to Him from whom all the worlds start into existence, and unto whom all the worlds return when they cease to exist; to Him who is the Soul of all existent creatures,and who is called Hara of immeasurable energy. Hear me recite those thousand names of the great Sarva. Hearing those names, Oh foremost of all men, thou shalt be crowned with fruition in respect of all thy wishes.
Aum!
Thou art Immobile,
Thou art Fixed,
Thou art Puissant,
Thou art Terrible,
Thou art Foremost,
Thou art boon-giving,
Thou art Superior,
Thou art the Soul of all creatures,
Thou art celebrated over all creatures,
Thou art all things,
Thou art the Creator of all,
Thou art Bhava,
Bhava implies that form from which all things flow and into which all things merge when the universal dissolution takes place.

Thank you.
Jai shri Krishna.

[sanathan]

Brother, when purANa-s are directly quoted to explain deva supremacy and are elevated or are considered as 5th veda, then why is it that a part of Padma Purana, i.e. Shiva Gita cannot be considered as authentic. Why would an advaitin write a commentary on Shiva Gita if it is not important?



MahaBharata of Veda Vyasa is called 5th Veda, not puranas, let it be . If you want to know why some are considered authentic and some portions are not, then you have to know the approach of VA , you are in the plane of Advaita and asking the questions to philo who is at different plane and expecting him to answer with your POV .

Any puranic or for that matter any scripture which has an author can be considered authentic as long as it is in sync with apaurasheya Vedas..and the part which is not in accordance with Vedas is considered not authentic according to VA. It is as simple as that.

Now what Vedas are telling along with its upanishat part is upto your interpretation.

I suggest you to study the approaches of different schools (Advaita,Dvaita and VA) before come to conclusion on others POV. You may accept others view or not, but you will understand atleast why he has that view and what are the basic principles for such a view .

[Amrut]

MahaBharata of Veda Vyasa is called 5th Veda, not puranas, let it be . If you want to know why some are considered authentic and some portions are not, then you have to know the approach of VA , you are in the plane of Advaita and asking the questions to philo who is at different plane and expecting him to answer with your POV .

Any puranic or for that matter any scripture which has an author can be considered authentic as long as it is in sync with apaurasheya Vedas..and the part which is not in accordance with Vedas is considered not authentic according to VA. It is as simple as that.

Now what Vedas are telling along with its upanishat part is upto your interpretation.

I suggest you to study the approaches of different schools (Advaita,Dvaita and VA) before come to conclusion on others POV. You may accept others view or not, but you will understand atleast why he has that view and what are the basic principles for such a view .

Namaste,

I understand what you say. For me, there is no need to study other system. I do not represent advaita., as I am not an authority. I just present Advaita, the way I understand and gave examples in daily life that i see and how we can live in harmony

I know about Phil that

1. After reading shastra-s and other POVs, he accepts Vaishnava POV
2. According to him, only one POV is true and that there can be only one God
3. shruti-s are authority and then comes smriti-s
4. Opinion of Shruti-s is important and not our personal opinion.

If there is no evidence of Shaivism or Shiva as supreme, then there would not have been any such sect. Each Sampradaya traces it's root in veda-s. This is said by Paramacharya.

EDIT: btw, Our friend Phil is 'The Philosoraptor'. He is capable of handling a few all alone ;) You should give a helping hand to me :)

@SV,

I just imagined thinking as a staunch Shaiva, it looks like it is a reality :)

Hari OM

[Amrut]

Any puranic or for that matter any scripture which has an author can be considered authentic as long as it is in sync with apaurasheya Vedas..and the part which is not in accordance with Vedas is considered not authentic according to VA. It is as simple as that.



This is accepted by all sampradAya-s. Now the question comes about interpretation. We have already seen that one verse can be interpreted in many ways. Gita is interpreted by Vaishnava acharya-s, Shaiva acharya Abhinava Gupta and Advaita Acharya-s.


Now what Vedas are telling along with its upanishat part is upto your interpretation.

A Vaishnava discards what he/she interprets as interpolation or is contradictory
A Shaiva discards what he/she interprets as interpolation or is contradictory
An Advaitin discards what he/she interprets as interpolation or is contradictory

Paramacharya asks, then what will be left?

I also wonder why was the need to create Rajasic and Tamasic purANa-s, just to 'warm up'? Acharya-s say one thing at one place and another thing at another place. As long as there is attack, there is defense.

Pranams

[jignyAsu]

Kena upanishad can be intetpreted in other ways, for eg. Vayu, Agni and Indra represent the sense organs they preside over, and thus the upanishad teaches the inability of the senses to comprehend Brahman.

Alternatively Agni can represent the karma kanda, Vayu the control of Prana, etc. and the upanishad teaches that all these methods can help us reach Brahman only with the aid of Uma Haimavati.


But then the Kena Upanishad speak of the devas employing their specific powers such as burning the entire world and failing. It will be difficult to map it to the sense organs though interpretations are various.

Since this is a Shaiva thread I would like to a few clarifications on Shaiva Puranas. In which Purana/chapter does the account of Lord Vishnu trying to see Lord Shiva's feet is mentioned - is that Linga Purana?

Also, is there a detailed a/c mentioned in the Shaiva Puranas as to how Lord Brahma, Vishnu etc and/or the world is created?

[Omkara]

But then the Kena Upanishad speak of the devas employing their specific powers such as burning the entire world and failing. It will be difficult to map it to the sense organs though interpretations are various.


This interpretation is from Eknath Easwaran, who gives symbolic meanings to those powers also. You can check his Upanishad translations and commentary if you want. His interpretation failed to convince me so I did not read further.


Since this is a Shaiva thread I would like to a few clarifications on Shaiva Puranas. In which Purana/chapter does the account of Lord Vishnu trying to see Lord Shiva's feet is mentioned - is that Linga Purana?

Shiva Purana. I don't know if it is there in others.


Also, is there a detailed a/c mentioned in the Shaiva Puranas as to how Lord Brahma, Vishnu etc and/or the world is created?


Yes, in all of them.

[Sri Vaishnava]

This is accepted by all sampradAya-s. Now the question comes about interpretation. We have already seen that one verse can be interpreted in many ways. Gita is interpreted by Vaishnava acharya-s, Shaiva acharya Abhinava Gupta and Advaita Acharya-s, etc etc etc

Just a few words. When indulging in a friendly (or otherwise, I hope not!) debate or trying to make statements of this nature, it is always a good precaution to "know thy enemy", so to speak. In other words, one must always respect the views of others and must always enter into a preconceived notion that the arguments afforded by the rival must be very complicated and ingenious.

That way, you will never underestimate your opponent and you will have a respect for him, which will hopefully be mutual. And you will also learn that merely reading pUrvapakshAs from one's own tradition is not enough; what needs to be done is to consult the opponent's works also.

Whatever you have posted in this thread, regarding upanishads, puranas and veda samhitAs have been answered very patiently and very thoroughly in the past by Vaishnavas. Note, you need not accept these views - just acknowledge and respect the knowledge of your opponent. It would be folly to assume, 1) Vaishnavas randomly reject texts they don't like, 2) Vaishnavas deem certain purAnAs as tAmasic based on a few stray slokas without a justification, 3) Vaishnavaism and Saivism are "sectarian" and advaitins are somehow more reasonable (By the way, Advaita predicates identity only at paramArtika sath and not vyAvahArika sath, so your position cannot be considered advaitic at all).

By Paramacharya, I assume you mean SrI Chandrasekhara Saraswati? Your faith in him, is of course, natural, because I know most smArtas in tamil nadu revere him. And no doubt, you are very much self-assured of his points. Deivathin Kural is not hard to come across and I have also listened to all that he has said. Of course, the fact that he lived in the times of srI PBA Swami and srI puttur swami, two towering figures of sri vaishnava sampradaya, would make you realise that they also heard Deivathin Kural and never missed a discourse!

Advaita is not opposite of Vaishnavism. Heard of Rama Subbu Sastri or the work known as "Shankararum Vainavamum? Might be interested to read these. So, let's not club "advaita acharyas" with abhinava gupta, et al. There are Vaishnavas (Vedantins) and there are Shaivas. There are no Advaitins, Vaishnavas and Shaivas, ie, a three-fold classification. Perhaps Appayya Dikshitar's brand can be called as Saiva vedAnta, but even he was prone to using non-vedAntic influences.

As I have said before, I disagree with Omkara, but he does not underestimate his opponent's views. That's key to understanding the position of the person you wish to refute. Taking them to be immature, or childish, would like I said, be folly.

No more from me on this.

[Amrut]

Namaste,

I have no interest in debates. This is just a friendly discussion. I never disrespect any acharya. I believe in Sri Ramakrishna and so believe that all paths are valid.

I have wrote general things without intention to attack any sampradaya. For personal progress, I do not need to study other systems, which does not mean I have no respect for them. There is no enemy, just people with different opinion :)

What I have written like - not even using any word which contain 'Shiva' is what I have seen

I have respect for both Omkara and PR and you too, for knowledge deserves respect.

Could you please point out references as to answers to my questions. Generally I do not look into Vaishnava section.

Just a note about myself (since we are interacting for first time).

I do not express myself very well. If you find something objectionable please ask for clarification.


Note, you need not accept these views - just acknowledge and respect the knowledge of your opponent.

It would be folly to assume,

1) Vaishnavas randomly reject texts they don't like,

2) Vaishnavas deem certain purAnAs as tAmasic based on a few stray slokas without a justification,

3) Vaishnavaism and Saivism are "sectarian" and advaitins are somehow more reasonable (By the way, Advaita predicates identity only at paramArtika sath and not vyAvahArika sath, so your position cannot be considered advaitic at all).

This is not what I have said. not the way you have represented. Regarding point #3, it could be concluded that Advaita accepts all forms of God as supreme and it does not mean derogatory remarks to other system. I have seen some Vaishnava-s who worship Ganesh and even go to Shiva Temples. If I wanted I would have said so, directly, like I have asked it is justifiable?

I have never thought like 'know your enemy, et al', so these type of thoughts do not arise in me. I ask people's behaviour, and do not directly attack an acharya or whole Vaishnava-s. It is possible that this behaviour is not taught by acharya-s.

Yes, I mean Chandrashekharendra Saraswati :)

Personal Info:

I prefer more to meditate and do not read more, but repeat it over and over again. Only to an extend that helps me to clarify certain things. All shastra-s are given by my Guru. For personal progress, studying other system is not necessary. I have not chosen my path, nor any shastra-s. All were given to me.

I have not read Swami Vivekananda nor Sarada Maa. I am not attached to Sri Ramakrishna mission and have never visited Dakshineshwar. The reason I was given Sri Ramakrishna's Jivan Charitra is because it helped me to cultivate bhakti and whenever I have read even a para, my mind always calmed down (nobody wanted me to become spiritual and so lots of opposition from family, friends and everyone) I am never attracted to Sri Ramakrishna as a person or as an avatar. After certain years of reading, I was told to stop reading Sri Ramakrishna. Then concentration was more on Shastra-s like Gita, Mandkya, etc. They all helped me to meditate well and meditation helps me to better understand Shastra-s.

Aum

Amrut

[Sri Vaishnava]

'Enemy' was figurative and not literal.

I have no intention to debate in a shaiva forum as well. That was never my intention.

You can find some vaishnava perspectives, my posts primarily in that blog link I gave you and in the 'vishishtadvaita' section of this forum.

Now this really is my last post here. Let this thread continue with the posts of those interested in Shaivism and not from me.

[Amrut]

Since this is a Shaiva thread I would like to a few clarifications on Shaiva Puranas. In which Purana/chapter does the account of Lord Vishnu trying to see Lord Shiva's feet is mentioned - is that Linga Purana?
[/quote]

Namaste,

It is also in Linga purana. That is why in there is worship of Shiva Linga, a symbol of formless, infinite supreme reality.

you can download all 18 major puranas from here (http://hinduismebooks.blogspot.in/2013/02/puranas-free-download.html)

To read in brief, you can check out an abridged version ( (http://www.gita-society.com/scriptures/ALL18MAJORPURANAS.IGS.pdf)english only) by International Gita society.

Simply google for ' all 18 puranas international gita society '

EDIT:

In english version it is page 645, in hindi version, it starts with page 83, the story begins from page 84, description of Shiva's Appearence as linga appears on page 86

Hari OM

[philosoraptor]

The Nyaya-Vaisheshika tradition which I was referring to does accept only the Samahitas, as far as I can make out. However, the upanishads and brahmanas are not incompatible with this worldview. Decas in the shruti can represent many things depending on context. In some places they represent organs of the body, eg. Indra represents the jivatman, Vayu represents Prana,Surya represents Buddhi, Chandra represents Manas etc.

The devas can also symbolically represent the areas of the universe they rule, eg. The stars, the sky, the moon etc.

There are various such esoteric meanings which are employed to interpret shruti in some places even by Vedantists. It is not a stretch to interpret all of Shruti in such terms.

Kena upanishad can be intetpreted in other ways, for eg. Vayu, Agni and Indra represent the sense organs they preside over, and thus the upanishad teaches the inability of the senses to comprehend Brahman.

Needless to say, interpreting the deva-s to mean the sense organs would contradict the conclusion that the deva-s are all different forms of the same brahman. Above and beyond the other problems associated with treating literary references sentient beings as really indicating insentient concepts. Now, certainly it is the case that the deva-s each have their individual spheres of influence, and can be interpreted to refer to those insentient entities over which they preside. For example, I have seen different translators translate "sUrya" as "sun" or "sun-god," and both would technically be correct, given the inseparability of the concepts of the indwelling controller and that which he controls.



Re. Aitareya Brahmana you will notice that just a few lines below the famous "Agni is the lowest of the devas and Vishnu is the highest" you will notice it says "Agni is all the devas, Vishnu is all the devas".

In fact, I did notice this. The nArAyaNa upaniShad (not the mahAnArAyaNa but the other one also said to be part of yajur veda) says that nArAyaNa is the origin of all other deva-s, and then in the very next mantra says that nArAyaNa is all of those deva-s. The mahAbhArata, which is indisputably vaiShNava in its overall philosophical demeanor, has passages in the Adi parva in which agni and garuDa are introduced as non-supreme entities, and then worshiped with mantras taking them as supreme entities. Once again, this seems to be independent confirmation of the sharIra-sharIrin paradigm of looking at things, rather than a strict statement of monistic sameness.



Considering AB 1.1 in terms of rank of the devas contradicts Kena Upanishad which says Indra, Vayu and Agni are greater than all other devas.

That is indeed an interesting point. The kena says that indra is greater than the other deva-s because of his standing closest to brahman. This would appear to be a hierarchy based on a different set of principles than the one used for the hierarchy found in AB 1.1.



All vedantic traditions do. In this Upanishad, Rudra tells the devas that he is the Antaryamin, that he pervades everything, etc.
Ramanujacharya and Madhvacharya come up with a very convuted explanation for this. The problem is, the same reasoning can be applied to the Bhagavad Gita.

Now I remember - this is the Upanishad you messaged me about some months ago, right? I still have not gotten around to reading it, but I will definitely have to bump it up higher on my short list. At the outset, with the caveat that I've not yet studied this text, I would just say that it seems perfectly consistent to interpret such a reference as a bhAvam of the perfected soul realizing his part-to-the-whole oneness with brahman, because this is exactly the way in which rAmAnuja and others in his line take it in the aham brahmAsmi vAkya in the bRihadArANyaka, and it made perfect sense in that context. But, again, I've not had a chance to study the atharavashiras, so I'll reserve judgement until I've seen it.

The reason the gItA could not be interpreted that way is because kRiShNa's identity as the supreme brahman is established before, during, and after the gItA, consistently throughout the epic. It is not the case that kRiShNa is depicted as a yogi merely realizing His oneness with brahman during the 18 chapters of the gItA. Moreover, in 10th chapter, arjuna himself confirms this identity of kRiShNa and brahman - thus, this is not merely the exclusive realization of a yOgi but an independently verified statement of fact.



And vice versa. Just sayin'.

Precisely. This is why I would not establish any position with the purANa-s independently. There should be good reason for ignoring the vaiShNava references, and that has not been explained here.

[philosoraptor]

Namaste :)

Brother, when purANa-s are directly quoted to explain deva supremacy and are elevated or are considered as 5th veda, then why is it that a part of Padma Purana, i.e. Shiva Gita cannot be considered as authentic. Why would an advaitin write a commentary on Shiva Gita if it is not important?


I did not say it was not authentic. Only that it is not a part of the prasthAna-trayi. For example, I cannot see any logical reason to ignore what bhagavad-gItA (which is part of prasthAna-trayI) says in favor of what padma purANa says. For that matter, I can see no logical reason to ignore what bhAgavata purANa says in favor of what padma purANa says.

I would say more, but I just realized that this is the Shaivite forum, so I will leave it at that.

[philosoraptor]

Philosoraptor ji, you are much more knowledgeable than me. Honestly say, did you not find even a single verse praising Shiv as supreme?

If you say Yes, in unbiased way, I know you are very sincere*, then we will end it here. If you would maintain same conclusion about the final goal of veda-s, then too we will stop here :)

Amrut,

In my notes, I have numerous references to other deities apparently being described as supreme entities. There is hardly any name I have seen, be it rudra, brahmA, indra, agni, vAyu, varuNa, etc that has not been associated with a reference to a Supreme Deity.

Also of equal interest, I have seen all of these names used to describe a deity who is clearly not a Supreme Deity. That includes rudra, brahmA, indra, agni, vAyu, varuNa, etc. The only exception here is nArAyaNa. I have never seen "nArAyaNa" being used to describe anyone other than a Supreme Deity, at least not so far.

It may surprise you to know that I do indeed pay attention during my readings to references suggesting anya-devata supremacy. It may also surprise you to note that many of these references occur almost simultaneously with references suggesting the non-supremacy of the same deities. To my mind, one has to reconcile both sets of evidence to come up with the essence of the shAstra. I favor Ockham's razor in this regard: the best theory is the one which explains the greatest body of evidence while making the fewest assumptions. So far, I will admit, the nArAyaNa-centered viewpoint of vishiShtAdvaita seems the strongest paradigm in my readings to date. But, I remain open to the possibility of other explanations possibly being more convincing. I specifically made it a point to read mahAnArAyaNa upaniShad (both recensions) after omkara told me he thought it to be an "obviously shaivite" text. Next up, I'll have to find time to study atharvashiras upaniShad, since apparently madhva and rAmAnuja accepted it also. But, bear in mind, that I have multiple, other reading projects ongoing, and this isn't even my day job!




I know about Phil that

1. After reading shastra-s and other POVs, he accepts Vaishnava POV
2. According to him, only one POV is true and that there can be only one God
3. shruti-s are authority and then comes smriti-s
4. Opinion of Shruti-s is important and not our personal opinion.

If there is no evidence of Shaivism or Shiva as supreme, then there would not have been any such sect. Each Sampradaya traces it's root in veda-s. This is said by Paramacharya.

EDIT: btw, Our friend Phil is 'The Philosoraptor'. He is capable of handling a few all alone ;) You should give a helping hand to me :)

Wow, I had no idea people saw me that way. :-)

But in any case, no worries. I was not planning a full on debate on the subject. First, I realized too late that this was the Shaivite forum. Second, I'm too tired for a debate right now. But just briefly, let me point out that the three-fold classification of purANa-s as sAttvik/rAjAsik/tAmAsik is found in the purANa-s themselves, specifically in the matysa purANa (tAmAsik) and the padma purANa (sAttvik). That being said, there are few purANa-s that are acceptable or discardable in toto; the vedAntic approach is to accept them to the extent that they uphold shruti, so the specific classification into sAttvik, rAjAsik, or tAmAsik classes is actually of secondary importance. If you want to know my opinion, as someone who has studied the bhAgavata and viShNu purANa-s, they are definitely in a superior class compared to other purANa-s (even the other sAttvik ones) based on their literary and philosophical value. But, that is a discussion for another time, and another forum.

regards,

[Necromancer]

Namaste.

Wow, this thread is still going on? I just finished reading it and my head hurts now. You guys sure do like to philosophize, don't you?

How I see the whole Shiva vs Vishnu debate:

It is said by Christian people that 'God created man in His own Image'. That Image is a Spiritual one.

We also create God in our image, giving Him certain human characteristics, giving Him 'Leelas'...

God appears to people how they see Him - how they look at Him in their own mind and heart.

For some, that is Lord Shiva and for others, that is Lord Vishnu.

For me lately, I have been so lost in ecstatic love for the Goddess, it's so difficult to keep on sharing that with Lord Shiva.

Now, did Shiva worship Gauri or did Gauri worship Shiva?

Who worshiped whom? , what worshiped what? and what is that 'worship' thing you speak of?

To see Lord Shiva and Lord Vishnu in human form, you could say 'both worshiped each other' or 'neither worshiped the other' and both instances/cases would be correct. It's God after all and He can do whatever He likes - even appearing as another God to fool people if He wanted to...

I am not about to chime -in on the actual debate making my brain switch off automatically, but I know that in my heart I worship Lord Shiva and also Mother Kali now.

I often worship them both together as Ardharnarishwara.

I have heard that Lord Shiva and Lord Vishnu can also do that - HariHara.

I've heard They have a son - HariHara Putra.

Maybe that was to shut everybody up from going 'who is supreme Lord, Vishnu or Shiva'? 'who worshiped whom, Vishnu or Shiva?'

Aum Namah Shivaya

[hinduism♥krishna]

Namaste ,
well said ! , necromancer.

I always wonder why there are so many threads like shiva vs Krishna . I wonder why there is no any thread like shiva vishnu are same. I wonder does sanatana dharm teach us to compare between ishwara . I wonder why people see superiority among ishwara even if vedopanishad, puranas accept both Vishnu and shiva as bramh.

Lord Krishna was an ideal devotee of shiva and he worshipped him as a bramh. Also, lord shiva is a devotee of Vishnu and he worships him as a bramh.
What we can conclude from this ?

I feel very sad that such threads are only to confuse hindus and divide hindus.
I request hindus not to talk on such topics.

Thank you. Jai shri govind.

[Necromancer]

Namaste ,
well said ! , necromancer.

I always wonder why there are so many threads like shiva vs Krishna . I wonder why there is no any thread like shiva vishnu are same. I wonder does sanatana dharm teach us to compare between ishwara . I wonder why people see superiority among ishwara even if vedopanishad, puranas accept both Vishnu and shiva as bramh.

Lord Krishna was an ideal devotee of shiva and he worshipped him as a bramh. Also, lord shiva is a devotee of Vishnu and he worships him as a bramh.
What we can conclude from this ?

I feel very sad that such threads are only to confuse hindus and divide hindus.
I request hindus not to talk on such topics.

Thank you. Jai shri govind.Namaste.

I totally agree with you there.

*look, we are a Shaivite and a Vaishnava agreeing with each other. :hug:

That wasn't the point of this post however and this thread is in the Shaiva Forum, so here we go.

As a Shaivite, I also happen to believe in Shaiva Agama. As such, my primary prayers and devotions will always go to Trimurti first and foremost.

Trimurti is the 'three faces of the one God' that's Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva.

As a firm believer in this, I always acknowledge the 3 faces of God as being part and parcel of the one Brahman which I personally see as Maha Rudra/Maha Kala/Sadashiva.

Whatever you call this aspect of God is just a name after all - even Brahman is just a name.

So to say that Vishnu or Shiva is superior, would be like chopping one of those heads off.

Now, talking about chopping off heads - excuse me while I go and pay my obeisances to the One who beheaded Lord Brahma under very similar circumstances...

Aum Bhatuk Bhairavaye Namah.

[Amrut]

Namaste PR ji,

First I am so happy to read that you (along with others are) chanting verses from shastra-s. That made me happy. (I am also happy that you are not in a mood to debate ;) ) - did I say anything wrong about you :D

I also agree with you about your approach and that NarAyaNa is not seen anywhere as being just 'anya-devata'. As far as rudra is concerned, it is also a storm god and are an attendants of Indra. 11 RudrA-s are also connected to 10 prANa-s with Shankara being most imp and hence bhagavan in Gita says that among rudrA-s I ma prANa-s. Multiple rudra-s were born as Brahma prayed to Shiva to be his son.

Rest all demi-gods are often given status of DevatA

I have given a thought about original topic

Contradictory stories - 'same moral of the story'

In linga PurANa, the rsi a story of Dadhichi (Brahmin) v/s Kshupa (kshatriya) as who is superior. Later Dadhichi did penance to Lord shiva and in turn was blessed to be protected by him and so was undefeated by Kshoopa (kshupa). So Kshupa took refuge in Vishnu and did penance. Vishnu replied that I do not punish Brahmins specially then they are devotees of Rudra, but still Vishnu said he will tryo. The end result was that Vishnu and all devata-s would not defeat Dadhichi.

Later when Dadhichi almost won and there was dialogue, he even argued with Lord Vishnu.

Moral

Here Dharma wins. You should not pray to God and expect to win over dharma. Vishnu who has himself took oath to protect dharma cannot let adharma win. So it was obvious that Vishnu was defeated.

But victory gave pride, which is ego and so the behaviour of Dadhichi. This concludes that when we are in victorious mood, we would not even hesitate to defame and deny God.

Later, there is a story in which BANAsura's daughter had abducted Krishna's son in order to marry him. BANAsura was protected by Lord Shiva. Krishna,when came to know the fact of his son being kidnapped, came with an army to fight with BANAsura. He found it difficult to fight Shiva, but Krishna was undefeated. Shiva had to plead Krishna to stop fighting and asked BANAsura to stop fighting.

Moral:

Here too, dharma wins. Even Lord Shiva could not win against Krishna who was on side of dharma.

another POV, one can think that since the defeat of Shiva is in tamasic purANa which contradicts sattvik purANa, this part has to be discarded, but after studying from another POV, one might change opinion.

---

When we read about stories like Vishnu worshipping Shiva and offering shiva his eye as a flower. we wonder why would Vishnu would worship Shiva

Technically there is no need, but Lord himself shows us the way. For us, Lord takes incarnation to teach us dharma and maryAdA. He does not need to practice any maryAdA i.e. he is not bound by it, as he is God.

But here when I read this story, my heart vibrated with devotion. such a high standard was kept by Lord that he offered one of his eyes to Shiva (deity of worship). I may have worshipped Lord Shiva, but bhakti was taught by Lord Vishnu. For teaching Bhakti, he even became a devotee for us. So there is a deep reverence for Vishnu along with reverence for Shiva.

another POV, one can discard this act as it does not comply with sattvik purANa in which Vishnu is supreme.

---

When we read Shiva destroying Tripura, our devotion deepens. He gets a name TripurAri. So when we read Shiva Sahasra Nama, and come across name tripurAri, we at once remember the story and are filled with devotion for Lord Shiva.

But if we think - Shiva could not do it alone, it was Vishnu who sat on top of arrow and Brahma and other Gods helped him.

In this case, will I be able to increase devotion? The purpose of story is defeated. isn't it?

Stories produce bhAva, which is important for spiritual progress.

---

Krishna Lila

We would rad Krishna bleeds. Technically that is not possible. but still Krishna bleeds. So Draupadi, tore end peice of her saree and tied it to her Brother Krishna. Now Krishna is under her debt. When there is vastraharaNa of Draupadi, she calls Krishna for help. Note that she did not remembered him first. She turned to Krishna as last resort after no one present would help her. Krishna obliged. and what did he do? he saved her dignity. How much did he gave in return of a piece of cloth? we all know. Sri Ramakrishna says, if we take one step towards God, God takes 9 steps towards us.

Krishna did what only god could do and the amount and the timing when he returned the dept and at the same time fulfilling his duty as Brother. Now we understand that Lord knew the future and so he bleeded for safety of Draupadi. Lord bleeds for us not because he is not Supreme.

BAla lilA

We see Krishna as prankster and enjoy his pranks

He would eat mud and the nharress his mother. But when she opens Krishna's mouth, she sees whole universe. So can we conclude that to to KalyANa of devotees, Lord also eats dust?

MakhAn chor

We enjoy this mischief too.

But if we think that it was bhagava who always eat first and then the food became prasad and was distributed to poor kids, else it may be taken away as tax, our perception changes. Prank does not remain prank. It is not to say that we should not enjoy his prank.

If Krishna says sanyAsa from Upamanyu and chants Shiva's name, he is guiding us. Obviously he will not chant his own name. so he will chants Shiva's name. In turn he gave us Shiva Sahasranama.

When Krishna stole cloths of gopi's bathing, we find him as - bad boy :) . But the reason. Women are not allowed to bath fully naked in public pond. So this was needed. Also the anger or any emotions actually binds us towards God. We get angry to whom we love. In turn what they got - bhAva Samadhi. See the extend Krishna goes for good of his devotees !!! Only Krishan can do it.

---

When Brahma ji praises lord Shiva or Vishnu, it is for our own benefit. From praise, we get bhAva for that particular deity. So Brahma does not even mind his own status as supreme but shows us the way to worship NArAyaNa.

When Both Brahma and Vishnu could not find end or beginning of Shiva Linga in form of light, Vishnu accepted Shiva's supremacy and Brahma didn't. In turn Vishnu was blessed while Brahma and Ketki and Cow were cursed.

Moral:

Truth wins. It fetches rewards. To make us understand all three played their roles.

So what we thought as contradictory has common moral, and some values.

In this sense, I ask, is there any need to reject any of these stories?

Now about classification of purANa-s

Do TAmasic purANa-s give more and more ignorance or do they remove ignorance? Is it a good thing to remove ignorance or not? Infact it is first thing to be removed. Avidya is a AvaraNa, it has to be removed to gain Jnana.

Same with other purANa-s.

Bhagavad PurANa says, there is no difference between Shiva, Vishnu and Brahma. But in that purANa. Shiva is not praised a supreme. So it is praised in another purANa. I see nothing wrong in it.

What we and how we think is more important. Intention behind action is more important than action itself. Krishna is great e.g. of this fact. So, how should we interpret stories? positively or negatively.

What is more important to to critical analysis or think in a way that it generates bhAva.

Emotions are like seeds. Which one of them do we have to be watered and nurtured? positive or negative?

Symbolism

similarly if we take symbolism it helps us.

If we think that Shiva who destroyed Tripura was symbolic in a sense that tripura, three cities are symbolic to trinity

satva, rajas, tamas
waking, dream, deep sleep, etc

It will help us too.

If we think kauravas and purANas are inside our mind, it is not wrong. Omkara pointed out to me in PM that Abhinava Gupta ji wrote this in his Gita BhAshya.

Later Adi Shankara in his Gita bhasya, 6.1-6 says that it is not wrong to think that everything is inside mind. it is both inside and outside. So the event actually took place, but we can take it symbolically :)

I request respected members to give their thoughts about it.

Hari OM

[Necromancer]

Namaste PR ji,

First I am so happy to read that you (along with others are) chanting verses from shastra-s. That made me happy. (I am also happy that you are not in a mood to debate ;) ) - did I say anything wrong about you :D

I also agree with you about your approach and that NarAyaNa is not seen anywhere as being just 'anya-devata'. As far as rudra is concerned, it is also a storm god and are an attendants of Indra. 11 RudrA-s are also connected to 10 prANa-s with Shankara being most imp and hence bhagavan in Gita says that among rudrA-s I ma prANa-s. Multiple rudra-s were born as Brahma prayed to Shiva to be his son.

Rest all demi-gods are often given status of DevatA

I have given a thought about original topic

Contradictory stories - 'same moral of the story'

In linga PurANa, the rsi a story of Dadhichi (Brahmin) v/s Kshupa (kshatriya) as who is superior. Later Dadhichi did penance to Lord shiva and in turn was blessed to be protected by him and so was undefeated by Kshoopa (kshupa). So Kshupa took refuge in Vishnu and did penance. Vishnu replied that I do not punish Brahmins specially then they are devotees of Rudra, but still Vishnu said he will tryo. The end result was that Vishnu and all devata-s would not defeat Dadhichi.

Later when Dadhichi almost won and there was dialogue, he even argued with Lord Vishnu.

Moral

Here Dharma wins. You should not pray to God and expect to win over dharma. Vishnu who has himself took oath to protect dharma cannot let adharma win. So it was obvious that Vishnu was defeated.

But victory gave pride, which is ego and so the behaviour of Dadhichi. This concludes that when we are in victorious mood, we would not even hesitate to defame and deny God.

Later, there is a story in which BANAsura's daughter had abducted Krishna's son in order to marry him. BANAsura was protected by Lord Shiva. Krishna,when came to know the fact of his son being kidnapped, came with an army to fight with BANAsura. He found it difficult to fight Shiva, but Krishna was undefeated. Shiva had to plead Krishna to stop fighting and asked BANAsura to stop fighting.

Moral:

Here too, dharma wins. Even Lord Shiva could not win against Krishna who was on side of dharma.

another POV, one can think that since the defeat of Shiva is in tamasic purANa which contradicts sattvik purANa, this part has to be discarded, but after studying from another POV, one might change opinion.

---

When we read about stories like Vishnu worshipping Shiva and offering shiva his eye as a flower. we wonder why would Vishnu would worship Shiva

Technically there is no need, but Lord himself shows us the way. For us, Lord takes incarnation to teach us dharma and maryAdA. He does not need to practice any maryAdA i.e. he is not bound by it, as he is God.

But here when I read this story, my heart vibrated with devotion. such a high standard was kept by Lord that he offered one of his eyes to Shiva (deity of worship). I may have worshipped Lord Shiva, but bhakti was taught by Lord Vishnu. For teaching Bhakti, he even became a devotee for us. So there is a deep reverence for Vishnu along with reverence for Shiva.

another POV, one can discard this act as it does not comply with sattvik purANa in which Vishnu is supreme.

---

When we read Shiva destroying Tripura, our devotion deepens. He gets a name TripurAri. So when we read Shiva Sahasra Nama, and come across name tripurAri, we at once remember the story and are filled with devotion for Lord Shiva.

But if we think - Shiva could not do it alone, it was Vishnu who sat on top of arrow and Brahma and other Gods helped him.

In this case, will I be able to increase devotion? The purpose of story is defeated. isn't it?

Stories produce bhAva, which is important for spiritual progress.

---

Krishna Lila

We would rad Krishna bleeds. Technically that is not possible. but still Krishna bleeds. So Draupadi, tore end peice of her saree and tied it to her Brother Krishna. Now Krishna is under her debt. When there is vastraharaNa of Draupadi, she calls Krishna for help. Note that she did not remembered him first. She turned to Krishna as last resort after no one present would help her. Krishna obliged. and what did he do? he saved her dignity. How much did he gave in return of a piece of cloth? we all know. Sri Ramakrishna says, if we take one step towards God, God takes 9 steps towards us.

Krishna did what only god could do and the amount and the timing when he returned the dept and at the same time fulfilling his duty as Brother. Now we understand that Lord knew the future and so he bleeded for safety of Draupadi. Lord bleeds for us not because he is not Supreme.

BAla lilA

We see Krishna as prankster and enjoy his pranks

He would eat mud and the nharress his mother. But when she opens Krishna's mouth, she sees whole universe. So can we conclude that to to KalyANa of devotees, Lord also eats dust?

MakhAn chor

We enjoy this mischief too.

But if we think that it was bhagava who always eat first and then the food became prasad and was distributed to poor kids, else it may be taken away as tax, our perception changes. Prank does not remain prank. It is not to say that we should not enjoy his prank.

If Krishna says sanyAsa from Upamanyu and chants Shiva's name, he is guiding us. Obviously he will not chant his own name. so he will chants Shiva's name. In turn he gave us Shiva Sahasranama.

When Krishna stole cloths of gopi's bathing, we find him as - bad boy :) . But the reason. Women are not allowed to bath fully naked in public pond. So this was needed. Also the anger or any emotions actually binds us towards God. We get angry to whom we love. In turn what they got - bhAva Samadhi. See the extend Krishna goes for good of his devotees !!! Only Krishan can do it.

---

When Brahma ji praises lord Shiva or Vishnu, it is for our own benefit. From praise, we get bhAva for that particular deity. So Brahma does not even mind his own status as supreme but shows us the way to worship NArAyaNa.

When Both Brahma and Vishnu could not find end or beginning of Shiva Linga in form of light, Vishnu accepted Shiva's supremacy and Brahma didn't. In turn Vishnu was blessed while Brahma and Ketki and Cow were cursed.

Moral:

Truth wins. It fetches rewards. To make us understand all three played their roles.

So what we thought as contradictory has common moral, and some values.

In this sense, I ask, is there any need to reject any of these stories?

Now about classification of purANa-s

Do TAmasic purANa-s give more and more ignorance or do they remove ignorance? Is it a good thing to remove ignorance or not? Infact it is first thing to be removed. Avidya is a AvaraNa, it has to be removed to gain Jnana.

Same with other purANa-s.

Bhagavad PurANa says, there is no difference between Shiva, Vishnu and Brahma. But in that purANa. Shiva is not praised a supreme. So it is praised in another purANa. I see nothing wrong in it.

What we and how we think is more important. Intention behind action is more important than action itself. Krishna is great e.g. of this fact. So, how should we interpret stories? positively or negatively.

What is more important to to critical analysis or think in a way that it generates bhAva.

Emotions are like seeds. Which one of them do we have to be watered and nurtured? positive or negative?

Symbolism

similarly if we take symbolism it helps us.

If we think that Shiva who destroyed Tripura was symbolic in a sense that tripura, three cities are symbolic to trinity

satva, rajas, tamas
waking, dream, deep sleep, etc

It will help us too.

If we think kauravas and purANas are inside our mind, it is not wrong. Omkara pointed out to me in PM that Abhinava Gupta ji wrote this in his Gita BhAshya.

Later Adi Shankara in his Gita bhasya, 6.1-6 says that it is not wrong to think that everything is inside mind. it is both inside and outside. So the event actually took place, but we can take it symbolically :)

I request respected members to give their thoughts about it.

Hari OMNamaste.
Beautiful post.

Both Lord Shiva and Lord Narayana are best friends and helped each other out.

One of my favourite stories from the Shiva Puran, is when Lord Shiva granted a boon of incineration to a devotee. Then the devotee immediately tried to incinerate Lord Shiva.

Lord Shiva ran to Narayana for help and Narayana assumed the form of Mohini, seduced the devotee, danced for him and that made him go 'boom'.

The devotee wasn't the only one seduced by Mohini's beautiful form. ;)

Aum Namah Shivaya

[Amrut]

Namaste.
Beautiful post.

Both Lord Shiva and Lord Narayana are best friends and helped each other out.

One of my favourite stories from the Shiva Puran, is when Lord Shiva granted a boon of incineration to a devotee. Then the devotee immediately tried to incinerate Lord Shiva.

Lord Shiva ran to Narayana for help and Narayana assumed the form of Mohini, seduced the devotee, danced for him and that made him go 'boom'.

The devotee wasn't the only one seduced by Mohini's beautiful form. ;)

Aum Namah Shivaya

Thank you :)

Yes I remember about bhasmAsura. Mohini, as the name suggests, attractive and mesmerizing ;)

All I was saying that without downgrading status of Shiv and or Vishnu I managed to conclude something meaningful that is practically helpful in my spiritual progress.

Regarding Upanmanyu giving initiation, technically Krishna do not need any initiation, but this shows importance of initiation.

In case of Dadhichi v/s kshoopa, Brahmin is superior, is according to Shruti, so even God will not oppose it, hence Vishnu defeated and pleads or prays to Dadhichi. this shows that when you do a mistake, apologize. Nothing more. - now PR bhai, we gotta agree on this one :D


The problem is that Rudra sometimes has to be separated from Shiva or Sada shiva, specially when he is a storm-god or a prANa vayu. Shiva always remains Shiva. I think this is a point why some say that Shiva as Rudra is a demigod, as when Agni says I am the creator, actually, it is Brahman who is speaking and not individual identity called agni deva. He will continue to do his work as agni-deva and not start a new creation.

Hari OM

[Necromancer]

The problem is that Rudra sometimes has to be separated from Shiva or Sada shiva, specially when he is a storm-god or a prANa vayu. Shiva always remains Shiva. I think this is a point why some say that Shiva as Rudra is a demigod, as when Agni says I am the creator, actually, it is Brahman who is speaking and not individual identity called agni deva. He will continue to do his work as agni-deva and not start a new creation.

Hari OM
Namaste. Yes, so true!

It's one of the problems with worshiping a Vedic God - they often perform dual roles which doesn't sit at all comfortably with them being 'Brahman'.

I chose to name it 'Rudra' in contrast to Pashupati. Nothing more than that.

If you would really like me to go into it. The Great Lord is called Maharaja Devata (Maha Deva) or the Ancients knew it as Achintya (Atintya)...Widhi Wasa...the First among Firsts...the Primal...the Infinite.

This is what I believe Lord Shiva to be.

I have also decided to 'cut corners' and just call Brahman, Shiva. Why do separate terms exist anyway? What's the difference between Aham Brahmasmi and Shivoham?

....and that's why I worship Lord Shiva - besides the fact I just love Him anyway.

Aum Namah Shivaya

[Necromancer]

Namaste.

Sometimes I often wonder whose cruel idea of a joke this is.

A young, white girl on holidays, suddenly gets everything from the lineage of Maharishi Markandeya dropped into her small brain.

I probably asked for it, but God still hasn't told me what He wants me to do with all this info yet.

So, I continue to type here.

I am holding nothing back anymore. It's gonna be pretty much 'full-on' from this point on.

Aum Namah Shivaya

[Amrut]

I studied both the Andhra and draviDa recensions of the MNU, and I just reviewed those mantras a few days ago (the ones alluded to by you above). While they do praise gaNapati, uma, and so on, they do not describe these deities as Supreme Gods.


Namaste,

I could not find copy of M.N. Up. :( . I checked sanskrit verses. The verses are present in 2nd khand, which are variants of Gayatri mantra, which is a maha mantra. I am under impression that variants of Gayatri mantra are only for Brahman. There is a surya gayatri mantra. Mostly it is andra pata.

I have got the book of atharvashirsa-s. I will scan and upload if I get time.

Aum

[sumitbagvar]

technically speaking during the Krishn era everyone worshipped Lord Shiv so we can understand that Lord Krishn also worshipped shiv. Now come to literature where one says Shiv worship krishn and other tells opposite to that. It is because when worship one God, he eventually sees him supreme being and sees all the Gods and devas was worshipping that supreme being. So when one Vedanti worship Lord shiv he will write that shiv is supreme to all gods and when some worship Krishn as their supreme god then he will write in his literature that krishn is supreme being. That same thing happen with Shiv Mahapuran, Vishnu Puran and other purans.