Is Lord Shiva a demi-god? - Page 11

Dark Warrior · 05-15-2008, 08:14 AM

Because, Krishna had given His word to His devotee, Shiva, that He would fulfill Shiva's desire and seek boons from the latter.

So, Krishna tells Arjuna, 'If I hadn't kept my word and worshipped Shiva, then nobody would trust My words and worship Me'.

Devotees wouldn't be able to trust the Lord if He broke His word.

There is also a second reason. Krishna is saying, 'If I had not worshipped Myself as indweller of Rudra, and instead worshipped Rudra himself, then, no-one would recognise Me as the Supreme Person, and instead will consider Rudra as Supreme.'

Vaishnavas understand that both these meanings were conveyed by Krishna. His sowlabhyam (accessibility) shows that 1) He keeps His word, 2) He never worships a Jiva, but rather worships Himself within the Jiva to ensure that no-one confuses the Jiva as Brahman.

Well, I am off this thread. You people are so caught in your sentiments, your brains simply cannot register the simple facts. That is why, Kimfelix ignores the statements about Narayana being Supreme and simply quotes the one line about Rudra and Narayana being one, and you (Avinash), questioning everything, despite the bold letters that proclaim Narayana to be the only Brahman, full of auspicious attributes.

Atman is the body of the Lord. He resides literally within you. Hence, worship of Shiva does not mean Krishna worshipped the Jiva named Shiva. Krishna, while fulfilling Shiva's promise, simply was worshipping Himself, the indweller of the Jivatma named Shiva.

So, Krishna says, 'Whoever worships Rudra or Narayana, worship only one God'. Since in the earlier verse, it says Narayana is supreme and the indweller of Shiva, it means, prayer to Rudra reaches Narayana only, and worship of Narayana directly also gets same result. But if you don't have the jnana to realise this, you are committing a mistake by worshipping Rudra as Brahman.

Kimfelix is unable to grasp the sarira-sariri relationship of Jiva and Brahman, so according to him, its 'sectarian' Vaishnava interpretation. And according to him, some texts are written by a bunch of dishonest Vaishnavites and some others by dishonest Shaivites. So, our culture is garbled and confused.

This is what ignorance and misunderstanding leads to.

It is not my duty to explain everything to Ajnanis, so I shall go.

Avinash · 05-16-2008, 02:28 AM

This is because the arguments given by you are obviously forced arguments to somehow prove Vishnu's supremacy. Let me go through your arguments: -
You say that the Puranas showing Shiva as supreme are tamasic and, therefore, not authentic. Why not authentic? To that, your reply is that Brahma is deluded during his tamasic period. If the content of tamasic puranas is Brahma's mistake, then it must be a very big mistake. The two statements "Vishnu is greater than Shiva." and "Shiva is greater than Vishnu." are so contradictory that a person with even little bit of common sense will know that these are contradictory. If Brahma could not notice this, then we must say that he was heavily deluded. If Brahma can be so deluded, then how can anybody trust your arguments or the arguments of the Vaishnava acharyas, whom you have quoted?
What is the proof that Shiva Purana is tamasic? You reply that it is written in Padma Purana. But Padma Purana has been interpolated a lot. At present, there are various versions of Padma Purana available. There is no guarantee that the verse in Padma Purana calling Shiva Purana as tamasic is not interpolation.
Even if, for the sake of argument, we believe that the Padma Purana originally spoken by Brahma calls Shiva Purana as tamasic, it does not really prove that Shiva Purana is really tamasic. It is quite possible that Brahma wrote Padma Purana during his tamasic period. Since he was deluded, he wrote wrong things. Because of delusion, he did not know that he was writing wrong things. He thought that he was writing correctly even though he was writing incorrectly. Because of delusion, he called Padma Purana as sattvic though it is tamasic. Please note - I am not saying that this must be the case. But it is a big possibility if Brahma can utter incorrect statements. Moreover, it is your argument that Brahma utters incorrect statements during his tamasic period. What is the guarantee that so called sattvic puranas were spoken by Brahma during his sattvic period? May be these were spoken during his tamasic period?
As per above logic, we should discard all the verses spoken by Brahma. Even Valmiki Ramayan should be discarded. Valmiki got the power to see the life of Rama from Brahma. It is possible that Brahma gave this power to Valmiki during his tamasic period. If Brahma himself was suffering from delusion, then how could his boon to Valmiki be really accurate? So, it is possible that the power, which Valmiki got, gave him incorrect information about Rama.
You may argue that sattvic puranas are authentic because they match Shruti. But here I have two objections. One objection is what is the proof that tamasic puranas really contradict shruti? Saying that Padma Purana calls them tamasic is not a good argument as I have explained above. You must prove that the puranas, which you call as tamasic, really contradict shruti.
Another objection is that sattvic puranas contain many things, which can neither be proven correct nor be proven wrong according to shruti. In other words, the puranas contain things, which are just not present in shruti. These verses of puranas become suspect. It is possible that Brahma spoke these so called sattvic puranas (or at least some part of them) during his tamasic period. Being in tamasic period does not mean that everything spoken by him must be wrong. Some things may be right and some things wrong. If some verses can be verified with shruti, then we know whether those are right or not. But what about other verses? Those verses become suspect.
Therefore, we should consider only those portions of smriti, which can be proved to be correct according to shruti. Other portions should be discarded.
Consider two sets A and B. Suppose we make the following rules: -
1. Consider all elements of A.
2. Consider only those elements of B, which are common in both A and B. Discard other elements.
If we need to follow the above two rules, then we do not need to look into B at all. This is because the elements of B, which should be considered are present in A also. So, why not study only A?
By the same logic, we should not consider any portion of smriti at all. Study only shruti? But in your arguments, you have relied a lot on smriti by calling that smriti as sattvic.
You called one verse as interpolation because meter does not match. I agree with you here. But, has anybody, really checked the meters of all the verses in all scriptures to make sure that the meter is correct? Or, only when a verse was found to be in contradiction to one's belief, that the meter was checked?
In another case, when meter was correct, then you claimed that Rudra referred to Vishnu because Narayan is a proper noun, but Rudra is not. How can you claim that Narayan is a proper noun? The word "narayan" means one who lives inside water. Of course, Vishnu lives inside water. But it does not mean that nobody else can. If you argue that Vishnu only is called as Narayan because of certain incidents like Vishnu residing in causal ocean and garbhodak ocean, then I can argue that only Shiv is called as Rudra because Brahma asked him not to cry.
You have quoted from Satapata Brahmana. Like you, I also consider it as authentic because it is proved to be very ancient text. Satapata Brahmana contains the story of how Vishnu's head was cut off when Vamri ants ate up the thread of the bow on which Vishnu was resting his head. This story does not find mention in the puranas, which show Vishnu as supreme. But it does find mention in Devi Bhagavatam. Will you consider Devi Bhagavatam as authentic? If not, then what contradiction do you find between Devi Bhagavatam and Shruti? If yes, then do you believe that Adi Shakti is supreme and Vishnu is not? After all, Devi Bhagavatam says that Vishnu is not supreme.
When you were asked why devas went to Shiva to pray to Vishnu dwelling inside Shiva and why they did not go directly to Vishnu, then you replied that Shiva is devata's guru. But guru is a medium to get us to God. If I directly see God in front of me, then why should I go to guru and why not to God? Suppose that God comes in front of you. Won't you talk to him directly?

Dark Warrior · 05-16-2008, 05:27 AM

Seems like Avinash's mind couldn't take all the facts, so its pretty much an outpouring of sentiment here. Since this is pretty answerable, I will take back what I said, and reply again.

Quote:

You say that the Puranas showing Shiva as supreme are tamasic and, therefore, not authentic. Why not authentic? To that, your reply is that Brahma is deluded during his tamasic period. If the content of tamasic puranas is Brahma's mistake, then it must be a very big mistake. The two statements "Vishnu is greater than Shiva." and "Shiva is greater than Vishnu." are so contradictory that a person with even little bit of common sense will know that these are contradictory. If Brahma could not notice this, then we must say that he was heavily deluded. If Brahma can be so deluded, then how can anybody trust your arguments or the arguments of the Vaishnava acharyas, whom you have quoted?

When Vishnu is among the Devas, few know that He is the Supreme Lord. On Earth, there are many foolish atheists. Similarly, when the Devas get clouded by Maya, they think they themselves are Supreme.

Proof - refer the Puranas where Shiva fights Krishna. Shiva was so deluded that even he forgot Krishna is God. Bhrigu also had to test Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva to find out who was Supreme among them, showing how well Vishnu blends in with the Devas. The Devas egged Shiva to contest with Vishnu to find out who was supreme. Vishnu defeated Shiva by a mere glance, upon which Mahadeva fell unconscious.

Brahma is deluded by Sri Hari to provide Tamasic Puranas. If an atheist can be so deluded so as to worship a man like Sai Baba, why can't a Jiva like Brhma be deluded enough to think wrongly at times?

Remember, Sri Hari came as Buddha and gave out a Nastika Doctrine. So, there is absiolutely no problem with a tamo guna purana which says 'Shiva is supreme'. When Buddhism itself is a product of Vishnu's mischief, you can expect ANYTHING from him.

Vaishnava acharyas KNOW that Sri Hari deludes. They KNOW that Brahma is a Jiva who is subject to faults. So, you can definitely trust them. Besides, I don't see any shaivite who has ever refuted them.

And you are right - A verse saying 'Shiva is Supreme' and a verse saying 'Vishnu is supreme' are contradictory. Anyone with common sense can see that. So they both can't be right. Hence, we refer to Shruti. Shruti verifies that Vishnu is Supreme.

Quote:

What is the proof that Shiva Purana is tamasic? You reply that it is written in Padma Purana. But Padma Purana has been interpolated a lot. At present, there are various versions of Padma Purana available. There is no guarantee that the verse in Padma Purana calling Shiva Purana as tamasic is not interpolation

Moron, open your eyes and read this thread. Shiva Purana's claims of Rama worshipping Shiva is nowhere present in Valmiki Ramayana. Hence, Shiva Purana is blatantly lying. Such a lie is tamasic indeed.

In order to prove that the guna classification verse is an interpolation, you have to first prove that Shiva Purana is not tamasic. But here is the proof - Shiva Purana is not above misinformation.

There are many versions of Padma Purana, but this one verse about guna classification has been quoted by both Ramanujacharya and Madhvacharya. NOBODY OBJECTED TO THEM QUOTING THIS VERSE DURING THOSE TIMES. Hence, if Shaivites couldn't say it was an interpolation, its not.

Adi Sankara does not refer to Guna classification, but he appears to accept it in his works - he only refers to Vishnu and Padma Puranas as authority in his bhashyas.

Hence, its authentic. We only use whatever has been quoted by Acharyas, as there was heavy debate during their times, and any fake quotes would have been criticised. Even Shaivas like Appaya Dikshitar, who were so biased, never refuted this guna classification.

Quote:

Even if, for the sake of argument, we believe that the Padma Purana originally spoken by Brahma calls Shiva Purana as tamasic, it does not really prove that Shiva Purana is really tamasic. It is quite possible that Brahma wrote Padma Purana during his tamasic period. Since he was deluded, he wrote wrong things. Because of delusion, he did not know that he was writing wrong things.

1) Brahma did not 'write' Puranas. He acts as a storyteller to the devas. Vyasa is the one who wrote it down.

2) As I said before, when Sri Hari takes an avatar among Devas, He fits in so well that even the Devas are deluded by Maya. So, Brahma gets confused sometimes.

3) Sattvik Puranas are consistent with both Shruti and Ithihasas, so there is no way that they could have been products of a Tamasic person. But Shiva Purana contradicts Shruti and Smriti. The example of Rama worshipping Shiva clearly proves it.

Quote:

Another objection is that sattvic puranas contain many things, which can neither be proven correct nor be proven wrong according to shruti. In other words, the puranas contain things, which are just not present in shruti.

Moron, acharyas have written elaborate commentaries on Sattvik Puranas and shown them to be consistent with Shruti. Exactly WHAT is inconsistent? Only your addled brain.

Quote:

These verses of puranas become suspect. It is possible that Brahma spoke these so called sattvic puranas (or at least some part of them) during his tamasic period.

Shiva Purana - Rama worships Shiva. WRONG, as per Valmiki.

Padma Purana - Rama worships Himself. RIGHT, as per Valmiki. This verse is also quoted by acharyas, hence its authenticity is known.

A 5 year old would understand, but you don't.

Quote:

Being in tamasic period does not mean that everything spoken by him must be wrong. Some things may be right and some things wrong. If some verses can be verified with shruti, then we know whether those are right or not. But what about other verses? Those verses become suspect.

You are absolutely right. Not everything in a tamasic purana is wrong. Sri Ramanujar quotes from Skanda Purana and Linga Purana in his Sri Bhashya.

So, the rule is - Sattvik Puranas are 100% consistent. Tamasic Puranas can be taken as valid only in those portions where they DON'T contradict Shruti.

Shiva as supreme contradicts both Shruti and Smriti. But the theory of Karma and Reincarnation is in Shiva Purana as well, and since it is consistent with Shruti, it can be accepted.

Quote:

1. Consider all elements of A.
2. Consider only those elements of B, which are common in both A and B. Discard other elements.
If we need to follow the above two rules, then we do not need to look into B at all. This is because the elements of B, which should be considered are present in A also. So, why not study only A?

Again, dimwit, your logic is wrong.

Purpose of B (Smriti) is to elucidate A (Shruti) for proper understanding.

For instance, Shruti says, 'The being (Vishnu) on the Ocean is Supreme'. Smriti describes this Ocean as the Ocean of Milk, with Lord Vishnu on Adi Sesha. Hence, it s accepted as truth because it doesn't contradict Shruti.

Then, Shruti says, 'Vishnu is Supreme'. Smriti says at some points, 'Shiva is Supreme'. Now, should be believe this? But Smriti itself offers a solution - that Sri Hari deludes people and the verse about some parts being Sattvik/Rajasa/Tamasa. Hence, Smriti recommends discarding non-vedic statements.

And what about some statements in Mahabharata about Shiva's supremacy? We have no guna classification. So, we turn to the option of proving it as an interpolation. Two proofs - 1) NO scholar in ancient times has EVER mentioned or quoted such a verse, so it is a recent addition, 2) It contradicts Shruti.

Since we operate on the basis that Vyasa composed Smriti with a view to understanding Shruti, we reject false statements as works not authored by Vyasa. But tamasic Puranas were authored by Vyasa purposefully.

If you study only A, you wouldn't understand anything deeper about it. If you study B without A, you wouldn't know which is right and which is wrong. So you need both.

Quote:

You called one verse as interpolation because meter does not match. I agree with you here. But, has anybody, really checked the meters of all the verses in all scriptures to make sure that the meter is correct? Or, only when a verse was found to be in contradiction to one's belief, that the meter was checked?

Refer above. When something contradicts Shruti, its authenticity can be verified if anyone, be he a buddhist, jain, shaivite, etc. has quoted it in ancient times. If he hasn't, further proof is offered by showing how it is inconsistent with Shruti. So, it is an interpolation.

Vaishnavas have written elaborate commentaries on Vishnu and Bhagavata Puranas to show their consistency. We have also proven how Shiva Purana is absurd and borders on blatant lies.

Quote:

In another case, when meter was correct, then you claimed that Rudra referred to Vishnu because Narayan is a proper noun, but Rudra is not. How can you claim that Narayan is a proper noun? The word "narayan" means one who lives inside water. Of course, Vishnu lives inside water. But it does not mean that nobody else can. If you argue that Vishnu only is called as Narayan because of certain incidents like Vishnu residing in causal ocean and garbhodak ocean, then I can argue that only Shiv is called as Rudra because Brahma asked him not to cry

Dimbulb, it is not my 'opinion' that Narayana is a proper noun. IT IS THE BASIC LAW OF SANSKRIT. Refer Panini's grammatical treatise. Refer any book on how to follow the language of the Vedas. NO VEDANTIN HAS EVER FLOUTED THIS RULE. Even Appaya Dikshitar abides by it.

Any sanskrit scholar will tell you that Narayana is linked with Vishnu. Shiva is a name of Narayana, but Narayana cannot be applied to Shiva. Since I am no sanskrit pundit, refer to a Sanskrit scholar for the same.

You are really ignorant, aren't you?

Quote:

Satapata Brahmana contains the story of how Vishnu's head was cut off when Vamri ants ate up the thread of the bow on which Vishnu was resting his head. This story does not find mention in the puranas, which show Vishnu as supreme.

Bloody Idiot, Quote the exact verses. And remember, Shathapatha Brahmana has been commentated upon by Vaishnavas. Even Shaivas accept that Vishnu is declared as invincible by the Veda.

Ganeshprasad made the same mistake when he called Rudra as Agni. But Agni itself has a deeper meaning than observable. There is absolutely no story in Shruti that subordinates Vishnu, and that is a fact.

Quote:

When you were asked why devas went to Shiva to pray to Vishnu dwelling inside Shiva and why they did not go directly to Vishnu, then you replied that Shiva is devata's guru. But guru is a medium to get us to God. If I directly see God in front of me, then why should I go to guru and why not to God? Suppose that God comes in front of you. Won't you talk to him directly

1) Mahabharata clarifies that Vishnu is indeed Shiva's indweller. Hence, Bhagavatam was indeed pertaining to this.

2) Vishnu Himself wants everyone to approach Him through Guru. That's His law, and nobody shall flout it. The devas are requested to approach Brahma through Shiva. Brahma then appoaches Lakshmi Narayana and pleads on their behalf.

3) You will NEVER attain God without a Guru. Krishna confirms it in Gita. Tell me, even Vyasa and Valmiki were schooled by Narada. So, Avinash is such a great jnani, that he does not need a guru to appear before God?

Avinash, you are just blabbering here. Go wipe your fevered brow.

Avinash · 05-16-2008, 05:45 AM

I have no problem in accepting that Brahma can get deluded. But then, Vaishnava acharyas also can get deluded. Valmiki can also get deluded.

Dark Warrior · 05-16-2008, 05:56 AM

Unfortunately for you, no-one has accepted that Valmiki can get deluded. Valmiki Ramayana is consistent with Shruti. Hence, it is proof that Valmiki was NOT deluded.

Vaishnava Acharyas have PROVEN that Shiva Purana is inconsistent. Hence, in order to show that they were 'deluded', you need to prove them otherwise. I have already shown how Shiva Purana is indeed lying.

A liar won't admit that he is lying. So, the Guna Classification is not seen in Shiva Purana.

Your ignorance is exposed - Valmiki was deluded in to writing the Ramayana, which is accepted as pramana by all schools. That's a terrific statement, dude.

Amlesh · 05-16-2008, 05:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avinash

I have no problem in accepting that Brahma can get deluded. But then, Vaishnava acharyas also can get deluded. Valmiki can also get deluded.

Nope, they are Brahmanas, they are the most protected by Krishna. They are supposed to show perfection.

According to Srimad Bhagvatam, they are highest in the universe.

Dark Warrior · 05-16-2008, 06:01 AM

Sarcasm without substance is useless.

Now, I really will stop posting here. It is a given that Sri Hari has revealed tamasic puranas for a purpose. And that purpose is clearly Avinash, ganeshprasad and co. I have no problem with that.

Its the law of the Universe. Bye.

Avinash · 05-16-2008, 06:03 AM

What will Sri Hari gain by deluding me, Ganesh Prasad and Co. throgh tamasic puranas?

Amlesh · 05-16-2008, 06:13 AM

All of us know the Vedic Conclusion, that's enough. The rest is to make our life a bit spicy.

Anyways, we are from the same background, so chill dudes.

Avinash · 05-16-2008, 06:19 AM

Valmiki Ramayan says that it was Brahma, who took the form of a boar and raised the Earth out of water. Context: -Sage Jabali tells says that rituals are of no use. Rama gets angry. Then Vashistha tells Rama that Jabali is saying this only because he wants Rama to come back to Ayodhya. After that Vashistha says some other things - one of which is that Brahma lifted Earth out of water.
Bhagavatam clearly says that Vishnu took the form of boar. So, one contradicts the other.

Avinash · 05-16-2008, 06:21 AM

Before anybody comes to wrong conclusions, let me make it clear that I am not a Shaiva. I belong to a Vaishnava family. In my family, all consider Vishnu as supreme. Even I have always considered Vishnu as supreme.

Avinash · 05-16-2008, 06:32 AM

One more contradiction. The ancestors' list of Rama as given in Valmiki Ramayan is different from as given in Bhagavatam.

Dark Warrior · 05-16-2008, 06:38 AM

Avinash, you are pathetic.

1) Puranas say that Brahma meditated on Narayana, and Varaha came out of Brahma's nostril to defeat the asura. Hence, it is taken to mean that Narayana, the indweller literally became Varaha. Since, jiva is the body of Brahman, according to Vishishtadvaita, when we say 'Jiva is Brahman', it means 'the indweller of the Jiva is Brahman'.

So, by saying 'Brahma became the boar', it pertains to Brahma's indweller.

2) Secondly, the Puranas show Yuga Bheda. The reason why there is a contradiction in ancestors is because it may pertain to a Rama avatara of another Yuga. Similarly, Krishna Lila of Vishnu Purana differs from Bhagavata Purana's Krishna Lila.

Lord performs activities differently in different yugas. Nobody said that all Puranas pertain to this Yuga.

Avinash, you are not a Vaishnava. I am sick of mordern day hindus calling themselves Vaishnavas, and yet equating Shiva to Vishnu. What you people know about Brahman can fit into the surface area of a pinhead.

Amlesh · 05-16-2008, 06:41 AM

Don't worry Avinash, I know that I'm not that intelligent, but still God gave me enough to identify a Vaishnava.

Anyways, I'll try to see the case you've presented, cause I quite ignorant about, then only I think I'll be fit to give a complete answer.

So in the meantime you can

.