Did Shiva worship Krishna or Krishna worship Shiva

[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


Check

Why Differences among the Gods ?

The One as Many

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.