Did Shiva worship Krishna or Krishna worship Shiva

[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

To read in brief, you can check out an abridged version (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.

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

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

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

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