Is Lord Shiva a demi-god?

tackleberry · 04-08-2008, 01:54 AM

Many people are offended by the word 'demigod.' But surely, except Vishnu, no one can be Supreme. There cannot be 'two' supreme entities. So Shiva is NOT supreme, even though the word demigod may not be palatable to some. So a better choice would be 'devata.' Anyway, here is the episode which clearly shows that even Shiva is under Narayana's control.

Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 8.12.27tām anvagacchad bhagavān
bhavaḥ pramuṣitendriyaḥ
kāmasya ca vaśaḿ nītaḥ
kareṇum iva yūthapaḥ
SYNONYMS
tām — Her; anvagacchat — followed; bhagavān — Lord Śiva; bhavaḥ — known as Bhava; pramuṣita-indriyaḥ — whose senses were agitated; kāmasya — of lusty desires; ca — and; vaśam — victimized; nītaḥ — having become; kareṇum — a female elephant; iva — just as; yūthapaḥ — a male elephant.
TRANSLATION
His senses being agitated, Lord Śiva, victimized by lusty desires, began to follow Her, just as a lusty elephant follows a she-elephant.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

All this doesn't mean Shiva isn't worthy of worship. On the contrary, one must worship Shiva to bless us with a pure mind, a mind that can focus on Vishnu with perfect attention. But to worship him as supreme is certainly an offense, at least sheer stupidity, according to Vishnu Himself. Here's the relevant verse:
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bhagavad-gītā 7.23
antavat tu phalaḿ teṣāḿ
tad bhavaty alpa-medhasām
devān deva-yajo yānti
mad-bhaktā yānti mām api
SYNONYMS
anta-vat — perishable; tu — but; phalam — fruit; teṣām — their; tat — that; bhavati — becomes; alpa-medhasām — of those of small intelligence; devān — to the demigods; deva-yajaḥ — the worshipers of the demigods; yānti — go; mat — My; bhaktāḥ — devotees; yānti — go; mām — to Me; api — also.
TRANSLATION
Men of small intelligence worship the demigods, and their fruits are limited and temporary. Those who worship the demigods go to the planets of the demigods, but My devotees ultimately reach My supreme planet.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Hopefully, people can see the light.

Amlesh · 04-08-2008, 03:48 AM

No one in this entire cosmos can claim to describe Him. He is dearest to Hari. Any comment whether +ve or -ve won't sound good.

kimfelix · 04-08-2008, 05:03 AM

In the Shvetashvatara Upanishad, the Shiva Purana, the Linga Purana and the teachings of the Shaiva Acharyas such as Meykandar Shivam it is established that Shiva is the Supreme Deity.

In the Mahabharata both Shiva and Vishnu are revealed as the Supreme Deity and in some passages Krishna is shown to be a devotee of Shiva. In the Nara-Narayaniya Parvan of the Mahabharata's Shanti Parvan (Book 12) Narayana Rishi says to Bhagavan Shiva, yas tvam vetti sa mam vetti yas tvam anu sa mam anu, navayor antaram kimcit, 'One who knows you knows me as well, one who follows you follows me; there is no difference at all between us.'

So the matter is a complex one and different texts seem to give different versions on this matter. There are many indications in various scriptures that Shiva is the Supreme Deity. Sometimes the statements appear sectarian, establishing Shiva as superior to Vishnu, and sometimes they are syncretist, revealing Shiva and Vishnu as two aspects of the same deity. And of course there are also sectarian statements from the Vaishnava perspective establishing Vishnu's supremacy over Shiva.

Ganeshprasad · 04-08-2008, 05:39 AM

Pranam

I am out of here before I loose my sanity by constantly hearing abuse to DevAdhi Deva Mahadeva.

You have not proved anything, nor does the Gita verse which is nothing but condemnation of jivas material desires.
I can provide from the same Bhagvatam eulogising Lord Shiva but what’s the point when I see people like you can not even be civil to your own fellow Vaishnvas, Sri Vaishnva can not stand Madhvacharya they in turn can not accept GV and the gaudiyas fighting amongst them self.

Enough to realise this is not Dharma.

I realise now it would be too much to expect from people like you to respect Lord Shiva.

There is no such entity as Demi God in Vedas.

As a plural noun, devA refers to the Gods ~ especially the 33 prime Deities ~ and deva can refer generally to any image of Divinity or Deity.

And there is only ONE Mahadeva, who is certainly not a “partial” deity!

Jai Shree Krishna

guliaditya · 04-08-2008, 05:50 AM

First of all "Demi-god" is a very wrong word.It should be devtaa instead of demi-god.
Secondly why every time questions on supremacy is being asked????
Whether csonsidering Lord Narayana as supreme is sufficient to attain Vaikunth Dham???? Whether our purpose of getting Krishna's prema bhati will be attained???
Read the conversation between Yudhisithira & Shree Bhishma in Mahabharata. Shree Bhishma adviced Yudhisithira to ask Lord Krishna who is Lord Narayana himself, to describe about shiva tattva. Shree Bhishma was not capable & neither Lord Brahma is capable too.
Read HariHar stotra recited by Markendaya rishi on the advice of Lord Brahma in Harivansh Purana.
By this fact whether it is not clear that Lord Shiva is not a so called "Demi-god"
Lord Narayana is Lord Shiva hence dont try to differentiate. Many great acharyas/rishis have explained in their writings but still we are debating on this silly point.Lord Narayan himself have revealed this fact then where is the confusion???

Pranaam

kimfelix · 04-08-2008, 06:00 AM

Regarding the Bhagavad Gita: I think it is significant that in Arjuna's description of his vision of the vishva rupa he does not mention Shiva as being present within the form he sees, although he does mention Brahma.

LoveroftheBhagavata · 04-08-2008, 06:07 AM

Tackleberry is a Madhvaite, so no surprises as to his humorous "exposition". My offer to him still stands good. I have scores of documents on Advaita Vedanta which in no uncertain terms tell of the foolishness of attempting imaginary demarcations between different deities, as they are all Brahman manifest. Ask Baobabtree how many such files I've sent him, Tackle. If you want to open your mind to something other than the Dvaiti falsehoods you have been indoctrinated with, just buzz. And since I am fatigued of casting pearls before swines, do not expect me to respond here. If you want to take the debate further, that can be done privately. You can send a message.

Amlesh · 04-08-2008, 06:35 AM

From Ramcharitramanas, Sri Tulsidas points out that, no one can get the favour of Sri Ram if someone say something wrong against Shivji and also Shivji is not pleased when He hears something wrong against Sri Ram.

So better we stop the discussion right now.

Dark Warrior · 04-08-2008, 06:41 AM

The thread starter is ignorant of etiquette, no doubt. He and I have our little differences (and confrontational mud-slinging). But that does not make Vaishnavism entirely wrong.

1) From the Vedas, it is to be gathered that Narayana is parabrahman. He existed alone, one without a second. No Rudra, No Brahma, etc.

2) It is mentioned clearly that Rudra is a Jivatma. Shathapatha Brahmana talks of how Rudra was born, how he asked Brahma to remove his past sins.

3) The name 'Rudra' was given to this jivatma by Brahma. Rudra means 'howler'. He was given this name because he cried when he was born.

4) Names like Shiva, Maheswara, Shambhu were given to Rudra by Brahma just to appease Rudra's ego. In reality, the name Shiva means 'auspicious'. Maheswara means 'Lord of the World'. Shambhu means 'Blissful'.

5) Therfore, such names like Shiva, etc. can also apply to Narayana. He alone is auspicious, blissful and the Lord of the World.

Now, the Vedas, are unified in one fact - Narayana is Brahman. But they also call Siva as Brahman, Indra as Brahman, Vayu as Brahman, Shambhu as Brahman, etc. However, it is clearly and coherently mentioned that Narayana is the highest and none other.

In other parts of the Vedas, these deities like Indra and Shiva are shown to be jivatmas. They have defects. So, they couldn't possibly be supreme.

Then how do we resolve contradictions? Simply take the common names. Siva is Brahman means 'Brahman is auspicious'. It does not pertain to Mahadeva. Shambhu is Brahman means 'Brahman is blissful'.

Indra has all the wealth (aiswarya) of Brahman. But he does not have other traits like intelligence, auspiciousness, etc. So, Narayana is Indra, Brahma, Siva means Narayana has aiswarya, intelligence and auspiciousness.

There is also another aspect. In the hymns praising devas, there is always a gentle reminder that the deity is praised only with Vishnu as the indweller.

Sri Rudram Chamakam, for instance, praises Rudra as supreme. But it also mentions in the Chamakam part that all prayers to Rudra go to the source of his power, the indwelling Lord Vishnu.

Saivites CANNOT get past the fact that Rudra has emphatically been declared to be a jivatma in Vedas. Therfore, they stick to Siva Purana. But Siva Purana is classified as Tamo guna. Hence, Saivites are defeated.

It is also shown in the Vedas that Brahma, Shiva, Indra are just posts. Any jivatma can attain this position by penance. Which means, if you or me do such a penance, we could become Rudra or Brahma in another Yuga by Sri Hari's grace. Once the current Brahma's life span ends, either he, along with the devas gets moksha (if Sri Hari is willing) or they will be subject to transmigration in Samsara again.

Quote:

Sri Vaishnva can not stand Madhvacharya

Correction. I cannot stand Tackleberry's disrespect for acharyas of other sampradayas just because they differ philosophically. It is unvaishnavite. I have nothing but respect for Sri Madhvacharya.

It is foolish to say that only Vaishnavas fight. The same goes for Saivism. You have Veera Shaivism, Kashmir Shaivism, Kapalika and Kalamukha, each squabbling with one another. The Smarta sect of advaitins also have divisions, each claiming to be the original parampara of Sri Sankaracharya.

----

Coming to the topic of this thread,

Rudra is not worshippable as a devotee of Vishnu even. If that was the case, one may also worship Indra, because despite Indra being completely materialistic, he always seeks the lotus feet of Vishnu for even material gains (making him a Vaishnava).

Rudra is a Rama bhakta. But there are many instances when he has rebelled against Sri Krishna, and considered himself to be supreme. Of course, he has realised his mistake, but that only makes him a vaishnava. There is a difference between Bhagavata and Vaishnava in the sense that even materialists may worship Vishnu and be called Vaishnavas. But Bhagavatas are people like our acharyas who have never stepped beyond the line of devotion and selfless service. Rudra is not a bhagavata.

Srimad Bhagavatam calls Rudra the greatest Vaishnava. True, but this may not pertain to even this yuga's Rudra. It is a well known fact that Puranas often pertain to events occuring in different chatur yugas. That is why there are some discrepancies with chronology. Hence, the Rudra hailed as a Vaishnava in Bhagavatam could have been a Rudra of a previous yuga as well.

I respect Rudra and other devas, but I won't worship them. Only Lakshmi Narayana and the acharyas are worshippable.

kimfelix · 04-08-2008, 07:01 AM

Dark Warrior, you make strong assertions there about what is said in the Vedas but without proper references these don't carry too much weight. In the Mahabharata there are clear statements that show Shiva as the supreme deity. And of course I must find references to specific passages: you might look at the final two chapters of the Drona Parvan in which Krishna is referred to as a devotee of Shiva and generated by Shiva: sa esha rudra-bhaktas cha keshavo rudra-sambhavah. In the Sauptika Parvan Shiva manifests thousands of Vishnu forms from out of his body and again in chapters 14 to 17 of the Anushasana Parvan it is made clear that Shiva is the Supreme Deity.

My point is not to refute Vaishnavism but to try to show that there is not a simple or easy conclusion to be drawn from sacred texts. There is plenty of evidence from both Shruti and Smriti to support a Shaiva theology just as there is to support the view that Vishnu is the Supreme Deity.

LoveroftheBhagavata · 04-08-2008, 07:08 AM

Dark Warrior is certainly to be respected for his markedly more mature disposition than tackleberry (with a small t), however, he also displays his characteristic Vaishnava sectarianism by trying to shove the Sri interpretation down our throats, when everyone even remotely acquainted with the Vedantic tradition knows full well that the personalistic conception of Vishnu as supreme can only be upholded by ignoring vast portions of Veda, and only emphasising a few, lesser sources of pramana. The fact is, Vaishnavas can claim prominence over other schools and propagate their biased and often comical views as much as they want, neither Ramanuja nor Madhva come anywhere near Sri Sankara as far as mastery over Vedanta is concerned. It is only their own followers who buy into their myths wholesale. As for non-Vaishnavas disagreeing with one another, difference of opinion is more often than not a healthy thing. However, some Vaishnavas display a pettiness, cheapness and ignorance that one would be hard-pressed to find in any other sect, whether Shaiva, Advaita, Shakta, Buddhist etc.

For confirmation of this, anyone can simply take a quick trip to a part of cyberspace where a Shaiva, Tantrik Yoga or Advaitic forum is hosted, and the contrast between the civility and tranquilness there and what we have here shall be obvious to one and all. With this, I'm outta here.

GODSEED · 04-08-2008, 07:10 AM

Kulapavana · 04-08-2008, 07:11 AM

Lord Shiva is most certainly NOT a demigod. No one can become Shiva. He is primeval, eternal, and part of Lord Vishnu. The offenders who consider Him a mere demigod like Indra or Candra are completely ignorant of the shastra.

kimfelix · 04-08-2008, 07:18 AM

Lover of the Bhagavata, I am not a Vaishnava but I think you are wrong to refer to Ramanuja's and Madhva's interpretations of sacred text as laughable. To assert that Shankara's commentary is superior without identifiable criteria of superiority has no meaning. You cannot construct a debate on that basis. My impression has been that Shankara is stronger on the Upanishads but not on the Gita where Ramanuja seems closer to the spirit of the text. But that is also just an opinion.

And if you will accept a little advice: I think you should try to modify the way in which you address those you disagree with. You don't persuade people by rudeness and persons like myself who are more or less neutral get an unfavourable impression of your own path. If adhering to Advaita makes people rude, intolerant and aggressive then questions arise about its spiritual content. I don't think I would like to be that way inclined.

Amlesh · 04-08-2008, 07:25 AM

It's not surprising at all, Lord krishna already spoke about it in the Gita... very rarely can one know about Him in Truth.

LoveroftheBhagavata · 04-08-2008, 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kulapavana

Lord Shiva is most certainly NOT a demigod. No one can become Shiva. He is primeval, eternal, and part of Lord Vishnu. The offenders who consider Him a mere demigod like Indra or Candra are completely ignorant of the shastra.

Haribol, Kulapavanaji. One of the reasons why I was in Gaudiya Vaishnavism for several years is because it had always appealed to me a lot more than the South Indian sampradayas, on account of its syncretist tendency. Sure, I am no longer a Chaitanyaite, but your religion has left an influence on my psyche which is truly indelible. I would imagine that to any thoughtful individual, as one draws nearer to God, a sense of harmony and universalism should develop at the expense of our lower natures more prone to discord than unity. One sees the exact opposite in some personalistic traditions, and hence, I shall always assert that of all the devotional cults, GV prevails as the mighty, undisputed monarch. Its far broader geographical and intercultural presence than either Vishishtadvaita or Dvaita amply attests to this. The nonsense which we get to witness on this forum is largely the product of a defective comprehension of Gaudiya theology. To me, you along with JN Prabhu epitomise about the very best of Krishna consciousness that is visible on Audarya, and if only more Vaishnavas could manifest similar symptoms, it is the movement of Shri Chaitanya as a whole that would be immensely benefited.