what r demigods? is lord Shiva a demi God? - Page 2

Yogkriya · 09-25-2006, 05:44 AM

ummm.. lol ! Yes I can see why.

Quote:

Originally Posted by atanu

Namaskar Raghu,

Rudra is progenitor of Hiraynagarbha and not son of Brahma. What you say is like saying that a wall was the progenitor of Nrisimha. And please note that Rudra is prayed to open up the Buddhi. No wonder that some intellects are clogged.

Yogkriya · 09-25-2006, 06:22 AM

Agreed Atanu. This evokes only offenses. Nothing comes out of God positioning agenda that the Gaudiyas follow. Fact still remains to be true that without any self realization or elevation of one's spiritual level, there is no liberation. What planet krishna lives or shiva lives or whether it is ten miles higher or lower is irrelevant unless one becomes qualified to reach there. And qualification can come only by sadhna, not by plain book reading or vedantic discussions. God is also the highest rasa, and rasa can only be experienced - not debated. Nobody was able to touch him by debates.
When Arjuna had to seek help from Lord Shiva, he went into a forest and did sadhna for many days. With proper knowledge of mantra, pranayama, bandha, mudras, shaktipaat and meditation. Krishna himself reveals this kriya in Bhagwat Gita. But, maybe instead he should've gone for book distribution or nama-hata?

Before I came in contact with them, I was neutral and didn't know this God positioning thing. But slowly I became a bit defensive about it with a lot of provocation. not good. But my position on Shiva and Vishnu (Rama, Krishna) is clear. I'm a Shiva devotee, but worship both and see the closest relation between the two to a point that they are no more two but one.
SadaShiva creates as Brahma, sustains as Vishnu and destroys as Rudra.
One may also think the same for Vishnu. Here all the arguments end personally for me in this respect.
Thanks for your messages and vital quotes. My best wishes and appreciation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by atanu

Nice logic.

But dear Yogikriya Come out of here and meditate or go anywhere else, or they will succeed to induce Krishna dvesh in you and that should not happen.

They have forgotten the story of destruction of yadus and they have not read SB fully: or they would see:

From SB

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

The light of cognition within everyone is Lord Shiva -- 'shivoadvaitam Turiya' as it is called in Mandukya Upanishad. Some people harm their own Self (unknowingly of course). This is called ego.

Yogesh from za · 09-25-2006, 07:14 AM

When I use the term "servant" it does not make someone less. But it shows their Love for that personality.

Let me make an example. The relationship between a man and wife. If there is lot of Love between the two and the wife takes on "servant" or servitude role does that make her less??

No it shows her Greatness and the husband would reciprocate in the same way.

If you are going away to the forest to meditate I wish you all the Best in attaining the mercy of Lord Shiva and If I could ask a Little favour.....If Lord Shiva may give me a little of his mercy that I may become a better devotee and follow Sirla Prabhupadas teachings without causing Vaishnava Aparaadh.

Yes sometimes I can become emotional But what to do? I am a personalist (not impersonalist) and as you are very much attracted to Lord Shiva, I am very much attracted to Lord Krsna and All Vishnu Avatars and All Dear Devotees. But onething I will not allow my emotions to cause Vaishnava Aparaadh.

I am still learning and growing and maybe by the mercy of all Bhaktas (Krsna or Shiva) I may reach my goal of becoming a servant of the servant of my most beloved object of worship Lord Krsna.

So I ask for forgiveness if I have offended You or any other devotees.
Wishing You all the Best in your Sadhana

atanu · 09-25-2006, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yogesh from za

When I use the term "servant" it does not make someone less. But it shows their Love for that personality.

I am still learning and growing and maybe by the mercy of all Bhaktas (Krsna or Shiva) I may reach my goal of becoming a servant of the servant of my most beloved object of worship Lord Krsna.

So I ask for forgiveness if I have offended You or any other devotees.
Wishing You all the Best in your Sadhana

These are all worldly concepts, dear Yogesh. A father serves his children with all his resources. A mother does so. God having provided life, air, water, fire, food etc., is actually the greatest servant to us.

Saying this is no aparadha and I can say it boldly again and again. Those who say that they are serving God are egotists. With what they can serve God? With God's energy? With God's resources? With God's intelligence? What one has that is not from God?

Only a superior can serve and support a weaker one. Maruts, progeny of Rudra, serve everyone, including you. They are your prana and your senses. It is worldly, filmi and egoist concept that one who serves becomes lower. No. No. No. People with worldly mind cannot grasp the significance of scripture.

Take for example, the Maha Upanishad. Narrow minded say: See Naraayana gave birth to Lord Shiva, so Naraayana is greater. They forget that what is not there cannot take birth fresh. Nothing is born out of nothing. All manifestations are of Satya only. Shiva is always within. Narayana having felt lonely and having felt sad meditated for long and then Shiva manifested. Narayana and Shiva are different or same? Shiva represents the best that is in Naraayana, who is the best that is there in me --- the pure awareness -- the Satya. Shiva knowledge is given to us by Naraayana alone. Only Naraayana can make him manifest. Not you or I, until I know Narayaana, Shiva will not be known.

But someday?

Naraayana is Param Braham Tattwa. Rudra is Param Brahman Purusha. And the Self -- the Atma is nameless shivoadvaitam Turiya. It is ONE.

Nrisinhatapini Upanishad

naapraj~na.n na praj~naanaghana madR^ishhTamavyavahaaryamagraahyamalakshaNa\-
machintyamachintyamavyapadeshyamaikaatmyapratyayas aaraM
prapa~nchopashama.n shiva.n shaantamadvaita.n chaturthaM
manyante sa aatmaa sa vij~neya iishvaragraasasturiiyasturiiyaH

eshha sarveshvara eshha sarvaj~na eshho.antaryaamyeshha
yoniH sarvasya prabhavaapyayau hi bhuutaanaa.n
naantaHpraj~na.n na bahiHpraj~na.n nobhayataHpraj~na.n
na praj~na.n naapraj~na.n na praj~naanaghanamadR^ishhTa\-
mavyavahaaryamagraahyamalakshaNamachintyamavyapade shya\-
maikaatmyapratyayasaaraM prapa~nchopashama.n shaanta.n
shivamadvaita.n chaturthaM manyante sa aatmaa sa vij~neyaH

Svet. Up,

4.18 yadaa.atamastaanna divaa na raatriH
na sannachaasachchhiva eva kevalaH .
tadaxara.n tat.h saviturvareNyaM
praGYaa cha tasmaat.h prasR^itaa puraaNii .. 18

4.18. When the light has risen, there is no day, no night, neither existence nor non-existence; Siva (the blessed) alone is there. That is the eternal, the adorable light of Savitri, - and the ancient praGYaa proceeded thence.

6.7 tamiishvaraaNaaM paramaM maheshvara.n
ta.n devataanaaM parama.n cha daivatam.h .
patiM patiinaaM paramaM parastaad.h\-
vidaama devaM bhuvaneshamiiDyam.h .. 7..

6.7 WE WILL KNOW THIS MIGHTIEST ONE WHO IS FAR ABOVE ALL THE MIGHTY – THIS SUMMIT OF THE GODS AND THEIR GODHEAD, KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS, WHO TOWERETH HIGH ABOVE ALL SUMMIT AND GREATNESSES. LET US LEARN OF GOD FOR HE IS THIS UNIVERSES' MASTER AND ALL SHALL ADORE HIM.

And this mahesvara will be known when one knows Vishnu and Shiva together.

Best Wishes.

Raguraman · 09-25-2006, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yogkriya

You could give no answer to all I've written, simply dismissing it as emotional rant!
What Rudra are you talking about?

When Vedas mention RudrA in singular, it refers to only Lord Shiva, the dweller of Kailasa, Umapati.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yogkriya

There are thousands of Rudras!!!

There are only 11 Rudras as per Vedas, including Lord Shiva, Umapati.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yogkriya

Brahma says that about one Rudra, but look what Brahma says elsewhere while worshipping Lord Siva!!! He hails Shiva as the top most deity to be worshiped and recognizes him as the master of the universe too!! You don't quote that! Why not?

Nonesense and proven wrong by the same Shatapatha Brahmana verses.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yogkriya

Are you really talking about Lord Sadashiva? We are talking about Shiva here! I dare you show me one place where Krishna - your top most object of worship says that Lord Sadashiva is a mere "Demi-God"!

All these verses are concocted and must be rejected as it opposes Sruti. By the way, there is no SadaShiva etc. which some schools have manufactured. Perhaps you should try to answer or give an argument against the Sruti verse logically intead of giving more emotional rants.

I will reply only to logical replies from now.

Raguraman · 09-25-2006, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by atanu

Svet. Up.
yo devaanaaM prabhavashchodbhavashcha
vishvaadhipo rudro maharshhiH
hiraNyagarbha.n janayaamaasa puurva.n
sa no buddhyaa shubhayaa sa.nyunaktu .. 3.4..

3.4. He, the creator and supporter of the gods, Rudra, the great seer, the lord of all, he who formerly gave birth to Hiranyagarbha, may he endow us with good thoughts.

Rudra is progenitor of Hiraynagarbha and not son of Brahma. What you say is like saying that a wall was the progenitor of Nrisimha. And please note that Rudra is prayed to open up the Buddhi. No wonder that some intellects are clogged.

Hari Aum,

Aum Nama Shivaya,

If you have read the Shatapata Brahmana verses properly, you will not get confused like this.

In Shatapatha Brahmana, BrahmA gives his child names one after another when his child cries and claims to be sinful (anapahatapaapma). The names are Rudra, Sarva, Pasupati, Ugra, Usana, Bhava, Mahadeva, Ishana. All the above names given to the child indicates that the child is unmistakably Lord Shiva, Umapati. There is no single reason to think otherwise in this particular verse.

Now it is also important to note that here this child(who is Lord Shiva) claims to be sinful (anapahatapaapma) in nature when born and cries and requests BrahmA to cleanse his sins by giving above names.

By putting both points together we can conclude Lord Shiva is not Brahman or supreme.

All we know in Svetasvatara Upanishad is that, a being named RudrA is mentioned. Yet this upanishad mentions RudrA giving birth to BrahmA.

So the conclusion should be

1. Srutis contradict each other and hence Srutis are fallible
2. Shvetasvatara Upanishad mentions a different being by the name RudrA.
No 2 is the right conclusion. Also Svetatara mentions about this being RudrA possessing 1000s of heads, etc. which is similar to Purusa Sukta Verses. We also know that Purusa Sukta verses refer to Lord of Shri and Hree from Tatiriya Aranyaka.

Also we know from Bhallaveya Sruti and Visvakarma Sukta of Rig Veda that all the names of Devatas belong to Narayana. Besides it is well known that Isavasya Upansihad refers to Yajna(avatara of Narayana) as beyong impurities.

Hence RudrA in Svetasvatara upanishad refers to Narayana, while Umapati RudrA is (anapahatapaapma) as per Shatapatha Brahmana.

Therefore all your claims are iirelevant and illogical.

Yogkriya · 09-26-2006, 10:01 AM

Raghu,
So one Shatapatha Brahmana verse replaces everything else in the Vedic spiritual culture as well as at least 50 thousand years of Vedic history???
I understand your eagerness to 'prove' Lord Shiva a mere Demi-God. And address him as some sort of a "being".
BUT, you neverthless failed to explain the real life examples of the high souled Shiva devotees down the ages that I mentioned in previous mails. You simply brushed off the whole Mahabharata as a mere concocted nonsense!! This is not accepted! Not accepted anywhere!

My question is still valid, why would Rama, Krishna worship Lord Shiva with so much devotion? If one had to follow you, then we will have to throw away some of the Vedic scriptures. Since Srutis contradict each other and are fallible, then modern day books written by people like Prabhupada should have no meaning at all? How can they ever be authentic? What about chaitanya charitamrita? what is it based on? It is neither Veda, nor Upanishad, nor anything!
What now? Why do you follow that then? Where is the logic here? You seem to impound some through vociferating against shrutis and Puranas. If you don't accept puranas, then stop reading SB. If you do, then include Shiva Mahapurana too. The same Brahma was punished by Shiva and accept for Pushkar Raj in Rajasthan he is worshipped nowhere! Are you aware of this?
The origin of Shiva is not known to Vishnu and Brahma (according to Shiva Mahapurana), since he is without a beginning or an end. he is Swayambhu.

How do you explain the greatest of the Rishis like Upmanyu, Vashishtha, Vishwamitra, Kanad, Pulatsya, Atri, Bognath, Agstya......????
If we had to follow your explaination, then all of them were men of small intelligence? They were all the biggest Shiva devotees!! Further, Vama devata is the Rishi of Shiv sadhna too.
And finally Rama! AND KRISHNA!! And Arjuna! Why would they worship and Shiva? umm... any answers to that?
You failed to answer before anything on this. And none of the GBCs could answer it too.
I guess all you can imply is that Shiva is worshipped for material gains? This is so not true. Sadly you are not able to see both sides of the same coin - Shiva-Vishnu.
And lastly, the conclusion you came out with in deciding Shiva's position as a mere Demi-God is false. Simply because, Shiva is impossible to undersand with some intellectual debate and this is what you are trying to do. Srimad Bhagwatam explains nicely - that he can be understood only in the state of deep trance (Turiya awastha or Nirvikalpa Samadhi), not in the state of sleep, dream, emotional turmoil, etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raguraman

Hari Aum,

Aum Nama Shivaya,

If you have read the Shatapata Brahmana verses properly, you will not get confused like this.

In Shatapatha Brahmana, BrahmA gives his child names one after another when his child cries and claims to be sinful (anapahatapaapma). The names are Rudra, Sarva, Pasupati, Ugra, Usana, Bhava, Mahadeva, Ishana. All the above names given to the child indicates that the child is unmistakably Lord Shiva, Umapati. There is no single reason to think otherwise in this particular verse.

Now it is also important to note that here this child(who is Lord Shiva) claims to be sinful (anapahatapaapma) in nature when born and cries and requests BrahmA to cleanse his sins by giving above names.

By putting both points together we can conclude Lord Shiva is not Brahman or supreme.

All we know in Svetasvatara Upanishad is that, a being named RudrA is mentioned. Yet this upanishad mentions RudrA giving birth to BrahmA.

So the conclusion should be

1. Srutis contradict each other and hence Srutis are fallible
2. Shvetasvatara Upanishad mentions a different being by the name RudrA.
No 2 is the right conclusion. Also Svetatara mentions about this being RudrA possessing 1000s of heads, etc. which is similar to Purusa Sukta Verses. We also know that Purusa Sukta verses refer to Lord of Shri and Hree from Tatiriya Aranyaka.

Also we know from Bhallaveya Sruti and Visvakarma Sukta of Rig Veda that all the names of Devatas belong to Narayana. Besides it is well known that Isavasya Upansihad refers to Yajna(avatara of Narayana) as beyong impurities.

Hence RudrA in Svetasvatara upanishad refers to Narayana, while Umapati RudrA is (anapahatapaapma) as per Shatapatha Brahmana.

Therefore all your claims are iirelevant and illogical.

Yogkriya · 09-26-2006, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raguraman

Nonesense and proven wrong by the same Shatapatha Brahmana verses.

Not really. I don't recognize this as the highest authority.

Yogkriya · 09-26-2006, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raguraman

All these verses are concocted and must be rejected as it opposes Sruti.

But you said - Srutis are fallible.

Yogkriya · 09-26-2006, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raguraman

By the way, there is no SadaShiva etc. which some schools have manufactured.

Just like Vishvambar Mishra's being avatara of Krishna?

Vashishtha Rishi - the great kul Guru of Rama worships Sadashiva devata.

Yogkriya · 09-26-2006, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yogesh from za

When I use the term "servant" it does not make someone less. But it shows their Love for that personality.

Yes so true Yogesh.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yogesh from za

If you are going away to a forest to meditate I wish you all the Best in attaining the mercy of Lord Shiva and If I could ask a Little favour.....If Lord Shiva may give me a little of his mercy that I may become a better devotee and follow Sirla Prabhupadas teachings without causing Vaishnava Aparaadh.

I used to go to retreats with my Guru to forests in the mountains, temples at night (all night meditations on the deity closing ourselves inside the altar room), but not anymore. My room is my cave for meditation that I can lock and get some mercy. I will ask for some mercy for you too. Follow SP if he is your Guru or inspiration. Don't lose faith in Yogeshwar Shri Krishna.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yogesh from za

Yes sometimes I can become emotional But what to do? I am a personalist (not impersonalist) and as you are very much attracted to Lord Shiva, I am very much attracted to Lord Krsna and All Vishnu Avatars and All Dear Devotees. But onething I will not allow my emotions to cause Vaishnava Aparaadh.

I am still learning and growing and maybe by the mercy of all Bhaktas (Krsna or Shiva) I may reach my goal of becoming a servant of the servant of my most beloved object of worship Lord Krsna.

So I ask for forgiveness if I have offended You or any other devotees.
Wishing You all the Best in your Sadhana

Where there is love, devotion and affection, desire for intectual warfare is lost! And that is the only reason why Bhakti and devotional love has been considered as high. Lord Shiva says in Shiv Samhita to Parvati that Yoga is the highest of all forms of sadhna, BUT it should be given to a Bhakta only and this shows the importance of bhakti and devotion. Even if a Yogi attains supernatural powers, he needs bhakti to keep them controlled and devoted. I wish you all the best in your loving devotional service and sadhna! Om Namah Shivaya!!

Raguraman · 09-26-2006, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yogkriya

Not really. I don't recognize this as the highest authority.

How does it matter if you recognize or do not recognize Srutis ? You are not that important.

Raguraman · 09-26-2006, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yogkriya

But you said - Srutis are fallible.

The conclusion can be either 1 or 2. In that same post I mentioned that no 2. is right. I adid not say anything about 1. Learn to read properly first.

Raguraman · 09-26-2006, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yogkriya

Raghu,
So one Shatapatha Brahmana verse replaces everything else in the Vedic spiritual culture as well as at least 50 thousand years of Vedic history???
I understand your eagerness to 'prove' Lord Shiva a mere Demi-God. And address him as some sort of a "being".

These are illogical statements. Every statement of Sruti is infallible and equally important. You have no capacity to understand logic properly.

The Shatapatha Brahmana verses explain very clearly and cannot be interpreted in any other way. It is clearly talking about Umapati Rudra Deva or Lord Shiva and none else.

While in Shvetasvatara Upanishad verses there is no such indication. Apparently it talks about a being called RudrA who gave birth to HiranyagarbhA. There is also mention of this being possessing thousands of parts which is similar to Purusa Sukta. Purusa Sukta talks about Narayana which is confirmed explicitly in Tatittiriya Aranyaka as Lord of Sree and Hree. Now one can ask why Narayana is mentioned by the name Rudra in Svetasvatara Upanishad. The answer is Visvakarma Sukta of Rig Veda and Bhallaveya Sruti where it is implicitly and explicitly mentioned that Narayana is the real owner of all Devatas names.

Besides Isavasya Upanishad clearly mentiones Brahman is without defects, while Lord RudrA is mentioned as anapahatapaapma in Shatapatha Brahmana. Hence Lord RudrA is not Brahman. Case closed. You can jump, shout, cry, throw insults, do whatever you want. As per Vedas Lord RudrA is not Brahman and hence that is the truth period.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yogkriya

BUT, you neverthless failed to explain the real life examples of the high souled Shiva devotees down the ages that I mentioned in previous mails. You simply brushed off the whole Mahabharata as a mere concocted nonsense!! This is not accepted! Not accepted anywhere!

Itihaasas are secondary when compared to Srutis, ie. they are authored by somebody. Besides itihaasas can be, were and are being tampered with unlike Vedas. Hence when they oppose Vedas they are to be rejecte