"Identity" of Gods- Krishna and Shiva in the Mahabharata

[madhavpr]

Namaste all.

This is my first post in HDF. I haven't read the Vedas and the Upanishads. I am not good in understanding philosophy and Sanskrit. I can't interpret "Aham Brahmasmi" and "Tat tvam asi" properly. I have read translations of certain Upanishads like Svetasvatara, Narayana, Mahanarayana etc and the epics Ramayana and Mahabharata.

In the Mahabharata, we come across the following incidents:-

1) Vishnu Sahasranamam and Bhagavad Gita glorifying Vishnu.

2) Shiva Sahasranamam- glorifying Lord Shiva, given to the world by Lord Krishna Himself. He is said to transcend both Prakriti and Purusha.

3) Markandeya Rishi praising Narayana as the creator, without beginning and the end etc.

4) Narayana/Krishna calling Himself the indweller of Rudra. He goes on further with the statement that He and Rudra are ONE and one who praises him automatically praises the other.

5) Bhishma (or Narada, I'm not sure) calling Vasudev Krishna as Rudra, "the three eyed" Shiva.

6) Krishna showing His universal form (containing Sankarshana, Pradyumna, Brahma and Rudra, Adityas, Rudras etc) in the Hastinapur sabha when Duryodhana tries arresting Him.

7) The conversation between Shiva/Rudra and Brahma where Lord Shiva questions Lord Brahma on the eternal Purusha (Narayana). Brahma tells Him that Narayana transcends both Prakriti and Purusha.

I belong to the Smartha sect which places all the Gods in an equal footing, but my ishta-devata is Lord Vishnu. However, I start my prayers by chanting Sri Rudram and Chamakam, and end it with Vishnu Sahasranamam.

Thanks to my brain of little (or no) understanding, I can't figure out what is going on between the two central deities of the Mahabharata- Vishnu and Shiva. WHO ARE THEY?? When I ask "Who", I am not looking for answers like Vishnu is the preserver, Shiva is the destroyer, or Krishna is an incarnation of Vishnu etc. My mind has become cluttered with doubts and I cannot comprehend the mysterious ways of the lord. It is my humble request to fellow members and enlightened souls to explain the identity of Krishna/Vishnu/Narayana and Shiva/Rudra/Mahadeva.

Jai Shri Ram, Om Namah Shivaya.


Regards,
Madhav

[Shuddhasattva]

Namaste

May I suggest reading the upanishads and puranas for greater clarification on this issue.

[ShivaFan]

Sometimes reading and reading the holy texts is not enough.

If you want to understand "WHO ARE THEY?" perhaps one way is to ask Them yourself. If you believe thEy are more than just a symbol but instead as you are also real, then ask the first.

You may get your answer.

There is also Guru.

[devotee]

Namaste,

"Who are they ?" ... the answer is Brahman alone who acts as the Creator in the name of BrahmA, sustainer in the name of Vishnu and destroyer in the name of Shiva. It is the third state of Brahman which is known by various names and in various forms (and even formless) as chosen by a devotee.

OM

[madhavpr]

Namaste all.

Respected Shuddhasattva, Shivafan and devotee ji.

I thank you for your answers from the bottom of my heart.

a) I will start reading the Upanishads with their commentaries by learned scholars and acharyas. Do you think reading the Upanishads and Vedas are a prerequisite to understanding the philosophies behind the Mahabharata?

b) I personally believe that they are the manifestation of space (Vishnu) and time (Shiva). They work together for the maintaining cosmic order. I do not know them at all. I do not know if they are abstractions, ideas or concepts. All I know is that Vishnu and Shiva are there and their leelas make me fill with awe and wonder. Their actions and words makes me wanna "seek" them. I see no difference between them. Sometimes, it's Shiva who leads me to Vishnu and it's Vishnu who leads me to Shiva. This is just my opinion.

c) If it is Brahman alone who manifests himself in three forms as the creator, protector and the destroyer, why does one 'aspect' of Brahman (say Vishnu) need to praise the other (say Shiva) ? Or why does the destroyer (Shiva) need to "understand" the protector (Narayana) ?

I sincerely apologize if I am asking too many questions. I'm just 22, I haven't read anything in Hinduism other than the epics. I totally believe that through the Hindu Dharma Forums, one can gain excellent insights and raise his/her level of understanding on Hinduism.

[philosoraptor]

Thanks to my brain of little (or no) understanding, I can't figure out what is going on between the two central deities of the Mahabharata- Vishnu and Shiva. WHO ARE THEY?? When I ask "Who", I am not looking for answers like Vishnu is the preserver, Shiva is the destroyer, or Krishna is an incarnation of Vishnu etc. My mind has become cluttered with doubts and I cannot comprehend the mysterious ways of the lord. It is my humble request to fellow members and enlightened souls to explain the identity of Krishna/Vishnu/Narayana and Shiva/Rudra/Mahadeva.

Jai Shri Ram, Om Namah Shivaya.


Regards,
Madhav

Wow. For a moment there, I thought you were going to ask a controversial question....



By the way, it's not necessarly true that being Smaartha means having to put all devas on equal footing. Two of the most famous South Indian Vaishnava composers, namely Thyaagaraaja and and Annamaachaarya, were both smaarthas.

[charitra]

Namaste,

"Who are they ?" ... the answer is Brahman alone who acts as the Creator in the name of BrahmA, sustainer in the name of Vishnu and destroyer in the name of Shiva. It is the third state of Brahman which is known by various names and in various forms (and even formless) as chosen by a devotee.

OM

Agree.

[philosoraptor]

b) I personally believe that they are the manifestation of space (Vishnu) and time (Shiva). They work together for the maintaining cosmic order. I do not know them at all. I do not know if they are abstractions, ideas or concepts. All I know is that Vishnu and Shiva are there and their leelas make me fill with awe and wonder. Their actions and words makes me wanna "seek" them. I see no difference between them. Sometimes, it's Shiva who leads me to Vishnu and it's Vishnu who leads me to Shiva. This is just my opinion.

c) If it is Brahman alone who manifests himself in three forms as the creator, protector and the destroyer, why does one 'aspect' of Brahman (say Vishnu) need to praise the other (say Shiva) ? Or why does the destroyer (Shiva) need to "understand" the protector (Narayana) ?

I sincerely apologize if I am asking too many questions. I'm just 22, I haven't read anything in Hinduism other than the epics. I totally believe that through the Hindu Dharma Forums, one can gain excellent insights and raise his/her level of understanding on Hinduism.

Namaste Madhva,

In the shruti, Brahman is repeatedly taught to be the indwelling controller of all other entities both sentient and non-sentient. It is taught that He is the creator of other devas (aitareya upaniShad 1.2.1, munDaka upaniShad 2.1.7), that He supports those other devas (bRhadAraNyaka upaniShad 1.3.7-18, kena upaniShad 3.1-11), and is also known by the names of those devas (Rg veda saMhitA 1.164.46). This latter point can be reconciled with the former when it is understood that the qualities of the devas for which they are named, must logically exist in their creator in the fullest measure.

Most Vedaantic schools identify Vishnu/Naaraayana as Brahman. The Rg veda identifies Vishnu as being the highest deity in mantras 1.22.16-20. The same point of view is expressed in aitareya brAhmaNa 1.1.1 and surfaces again in the Upanishads and repeatedly throughout the Bhagavad-gita, wherein He is equated with Brahman (gItA 10.12).

The Rg veda 7.40.5 has Rudra as the devotee of Vishnu, by whose worship he gets his strength: "With offerings I propitiate the branches of this swift-moving God, the bounteous Viṣṇu. Hence Rudra gained his Rudra-strength:" This view is seen also in the gIta, in which both Shiva and Brahma are seen within the vishva-rUpa of Vishnu (gItA 11.15). Note that even the names of Shiva are also names of Vishnu in the sense described above. Thus, it should be understood that Brahman (Vishnu) is being referred when a deva's name is invoked to refer to the supreme being, as there can only be one supreme being.

Vishnu, Shiva, and Brahma are not the same being, as is obvious from any story in which they are depicted as separate beings. There is no reason for Brahman in one form to praise Himself in another form, and such a position simply defies logic. Nor is it the case that the devas are just different forms of Brahman, as the shruti is quite clear that the devas have their origin in and are supported by Brahman. As you are reading Mahaabhaarata, you are no doubt familiar with the story of how devas headed by Brahmaa went to kshIrasAgara to request Vishnu to come down as Krishna avataara. It does not make any sense to interpret this as "the Paramatma who is Indra along with the Paramatma who is Agni and the Paramatmas known as other devas, headed by the Paramatma known as Brahma went to Vaikuntha to beg Vishnu-Paramatma to come as avatar to relieve the Earth's burden. Because only the Paramatma known as Vishnu could do this...."

Lastly, not everything in the smRti is consistent with shruti, and thus the smRti should taken as a dependent authority only.

regards,

[devotee]

Namaste Madhav,

c) If it is Brahman alone who manifests himself in three forms as the creator, protector and the destroyer, why does one 'aspect' of Brahman (say Vishnu) need to praise the other (say Shiva) ? Or why does the destroyer (Shiva) need to "understand" the protector (Narayana) ?

Do you know Madahav that you too are one aspect of the same Brahman ? The MAndukya Upanishad tells us that God is the third state of Brahman which is the inner controller, the origin and end of all beings. It doesn't say that there are three different entities i.e. BrahmA, Vishnu or Mahesh. Similarly Bhagwad Gita chapter-13 tells us that Brahman alone is the creator, sustainer and the destroyer. The Shruti tells us that there is no difference between Shiva and Vishnu. All these aspects of Saguna Brahman are bound by Kaala i.e. they have origin and end.

This praising, need, understanding etc. that you talk about is within mental realm, within MAyA. These words have no meaning in reality. Why should God which is the sole reality and who is omnipotent have any need to praise anyone or why should he need any praise from anyone ? It is ridiculous. By imagining so, we bring God to limitation to be able to understand God with our limited mental abilities. That is the purpose of PurANas.

What I have explained you is the Advaitic explanation of scriptures. If that doesn't appeal to you then you may refer to the Dvaitic explanation.

OM

[philosoraptor]

Namaste,

I would also add that there are many systems of Vedic explanation besides Advaita. Don't fall into the trap of equating Advaita with Hinduism - an all-too-common misconception in this day and age.

Also, there is no logical connection between the ideas "we should worship Brahman" and "Brahman needs our worship." Hence, there is nothing to criticize in the idea that we should worship Him. He does not require anything from us. But by taking use of intelligence, we can recognize the fact that simply living for the pleasure of our senses merely leads to an endlessly cycle of pleasures and pains. By turning towards Him, we can end this by aspiring for moksha. I am reminded of the famous passage from the munDaka upaniShad:

III-i-1: Two birds that are ever associated and have similar names, cling to the same tree. Of these, one eats the fruit of divergent tastes, and the other looks on without eating.

III-i-2: On the same tree, the individual soul remains drowned (i.e. stuck), as it were; and so it moans, being worried by its impotence. When it sees thus the other, the adored Lord, and His glory, then it becomes liberated from sorrow.

This analogy reflects the situation of the individual soul and Brahman, who are differentiated by the fact that the former is conditioned by association with matter. Like the first bird, we sample the various fruits, being engrossed in the transient pleasures and pains which seem to go on without end, never finding that perpetual source of bliss which is really only found by turning to Brahman.

Note also that the idea that the world around us is illusion, and thus that worship also is illusion, is exclusive to Advaita. The principle Upanishads do not speak of an illusory world in which actions are illusory and without consequence, nor do most Vedaantic schools endorse such a view. There are real consequences to what you choose to do, including who you choose to worship. But there is no one to force you on the right path. Like Arjuna, you have to find out what it is and choose to follow it.

Best wishes with your search,