Dark Warrior

Are you nuts? The Gita, Sahasranama and Bhagavata has been authoritative for every scholar since ancient times. And you have the ignorance to compare it to a text that has so many corrupted material in it? Mahabharata is a highly interpolated text. But Bhagavatam has had over 10 commentators, who have commentated on the exact verses we have today. Common sense tells us which book is better. Smriti should be used to HELP understand Shruti. It should never be taken as an independent authority. Avinash, you are a very sorry character. My quotes from Santi Parva have been mentioned by both Vedanta Desikar and Madhvacharya, hence its authentic. So, shut it. Since any quote about Shiva being supreme contradicts Shruti, it is discarded wholesale. That's always been the way of Vedanta. I suggest you first brush up on what constitutes a pramana and what doesn't. Very good. Then, I have a suggestion. Use your brains and ask Sri Krishnamachari about the Mahabharata. Or better yet, ask Sri Velukkudi Krishnan Swami. Still reluctant to do it, eh? Sri Krishnamachari criticised Rajagopalachari for portraying Shiva as equal to Vishnu, I believe. So, there is ample proof that a scholar can resolve your silly queries. Playing guesswork again, I see. And what was that nonsense about western scholars (Robert Zahner) agreeing with Sri Sankara and disagreeing with Sri Ramanuja? Let me tell you something - No Vedantin really cares what your western scholars think. Your 'scholars' still haven't been able to properly understand the Vedas, and make foolish comments like, 'Gita is a Vaishnavite text, but Vedas are Shaivite texts'. So, stop referring to western scholars and indologists. The idea that anyone can write a bhashya on Brahma Sutras or Upanishads using an obviously interpolated text like Mahabharata is so laughable that I shall not even debate it. Next, they will be asking us to consider archie comics as pramana.

And your position is refuted by Shruti. No Vedantin considers Smirti as an independent pramana. Paurusheya scriptures CANNOT and WILL NOT be equated to the Apaurusheya Vedas. Its a rule of Vedanta, and cannot be flouted. I have told you a hundred times, contact Sri Velukkudi Krishnan Swami or Sri Puttur Krishnamachari Swami for this. Kinchitkaram is an online site of Sri Velukkudi Swami, and he answers all questions immediately. But of course, your bias to equate Shiva and Vishnu prevents you from doing it, doesn't it? C. Rajagopalachari was a Vaishnava. He wrote a commentary on Mahabharata. However, Sri Krishnamachari Swami soundly criticised him for his incorrect translations. So, use your brains here. Don't you think there must be some source that Sri Krishnamachari used to refute Rajagopalachari? The latter apologised to Sri Krishnamachari. You don't seem to understand the basics. If Sri Madhva stealthily omitted any verses about Shiva being praised, he would have received it on all ends from Shaivites. A dozen versions existed during his times. I said, stop quoting the Mahabharata. You never learn, will you? Even Appaya Dikshitar, a staunch Shaivite, did not use the Mahabharata to attempt to prove his point. Who are you to devise new rules of Vedanta? From the point of Shruti, Vaishnava view of Gita is correct. Shruti > Smriti. Case closed. BOTTOM LINE - If you want to believe this nonsense, go ahead. But do not claim authority for your beliefs, and maintain that it is just a belief of yours. And now, for the last time, I really will stop posting in this thread. Obviously, these people will not change.

OK. I am not denying its grammatical accuracy. But when you interpret something, you look for logic. For instance, both Tat Tvam Asi and Atat Tvam Asi are grammatically correct. But only one could be the true purport (However, let us not go into that). So, logic, and context needs to be applied. Here, the logic adopted by Vaishnavas is simple - Shruti declares Isha Rudra to be the son of Brahma. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad declares the World and everything to be Brahman's body. So, naturally, you would expect to find Isha Mahadeva in the body of Krishna, as Mahadeva is not supreme, as per Vedas. All important devas were mentioned by Arjuna. Hence, Mahadeva must be there as well. Mahadeva, being the son of Brahma, is sitting with his father. That's the interpretation, and its absolutely concordant with Shruti. Furthermore, its redundant to say Brahma is the Lord of all creatures. Arjuna was feeling awed by Krishna, who was Brahman (Vishnu). So, I doubt Arjuna would be calling Devas by their grand titles at that time. Logic says its Shiva. And grammatically viable as well. Its your agenda to blindly equate Vishnu with Shiva that makes you reject this and accept another version. We, however, faithfully follow Shruti.

Isha and Isana are both same. Sri Rudram also mentions it. Kesava simply means 'Ka, Isa, Va'. Keshava is also acceptable. Like I said before, only if you really have an agenda, you can interpret it that way. My interpretation is in accordance with Shruti, and with Gita, where Krishna reveals His form with 4 hands, Conch, Chakra, etc.

Post Deleted by Admin5

Post Deleted by Admin5

I agree. Good. But in the case of Rig Veda and Satapatha Brahmana, specifically, Rudra is referred to as a Deva. And in Satapatha Brahmana, explicit reference to a deva named 'Pasupati', 'Mahadeva', 'Ugra' and 'Rudra' are given. Furthermore, this sinful Kumara is mentioned to have a son named Skanda. And did I deny that? In places where Veda simply says, 'Shiva is Supreme' without specifying names of Mahadeva like 'Isana', 'Pasupati', etc....'Shiva' simply means auspicious. You are quite right that in this context, Rudra pertains to Mahadeva. And yes, we agree that Mahadeva is being referred to as supreme. Now, 1) We know that Mahadeva had a birth, and called himself sinful. And other pramanas that say he is a jiva. 2) Here, it praises Shiva as Brahman. So, we turn to alternate pramanas, 1) Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, which says Brahman has all jivas/devas/world as His body. Now, when you call me 'Dark Warrior', you refer to my soul and body. But in reality, it is my soul which responds. Similarly, we take it to mean that 'Rudra' here pertains to the soul of Rudra, ie Vishnu. Another explanation is also possible - All jivas are part of Vishnu's body. In fact, He gets the name 'Kesava' because Ka (Brahma) and Isa (Shiva) are His limbs. So, think - you say, this woman has beautiful hair. True, the hair is beautiful, but who is really responsible for keeping it beautiful? The woman only. So, praise goes to the woman, rather than the hair. And in Svet. Up, praise goes to Vishnu. Similarly, there are verses calling Agni, Vayu, Indra, Chandra, Prajapati, Brahma, etc. as Supreme. All these are explained thusly. To sum up - verses that say 'Rudra is supreme' or 'Shiva is supreme' without pertaining to any description simply means 'Destroyer of Misery/Auspicious One is Supreme'. Verses that glorify the 3 eyed Mahadeva and other devas pertain to Vishnu, going by the body/soul concept. Vishnu is identified as Para Brahman, Sriman NarayaNa.

So, why couldn't Krishna simply show Himself to these people, tell them 'I am god, don't kill'? Because Karma is AnAdi. And the Lord is the neutral arbitrator. He does not refrain from imposing punishments, but at the same time, He tries to make it easier. There are tamasic people in this world. They, owing to karma, cannot understand the truth. It is explained in Gita, the nature of different religions. Lord gives different religions to help them on their way. Shiva will clean his devotees of tamas/rajas and prepare them for bhakti to Hari. That being said, I don't claim to be sattvik either. Everyone has tamo and rajo guna. And certainly, I can see that it is working on you. I only argue so that you don't spread your ridiculous views. Plus, you torture the Veda without any knowledge. It is a sin to tamper with apaurusheya shruti without any jnana.

No, I said, 'NarayaNa, the name can NEVER become a name of Shiva'. Shiva, Indra, Agni, etc. can be ascribed to NarayaNa, but not vice versa. Vishnu is identified as NarayaNa. Mahadeva is identified as a part of NarayaNa's creation. So, they are not same. Easy as pie. Let's see, according to Kimfelix and Avinash, our tradition presents mutually contradictory texts. So, we must accept that we don't really know what our rishis meant, and most of it is probably man made and not real. According to Vaishnavas, everything is consistent and can be made whole easily. Even the guna classification is acceptable. Any sane person would know which view is right. I was patient in the beginning, but when someone keeps repeating the same thing, it gets annoying.

Post Deleted by Admin5

Post Deleted by Admin5

Post Deleted by Admin5

Post Deleted by Admin5

http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia//archives/sep05/index.html This is the link to archives. There are many posts on various topics, but among them, you will find some postings on Nachiar Tirumozhi. PB Annangrachariar's unparalleled translation is also given. Since you are interested in Divya Prabandham, I suggest that you also try Thiruvoimozhi (Nammalvar) and the hymns of Thirumangai Alvar. The 'Amalanadipiran' hymns of Thiruppanalvar are also truly wonderful, for they describe every single kalyana guna and detail of Lord Ranganatha (of Srirangam).

First of all, you are a very confused soul. Let me clarify - You don't believe Vishnu is supreme. Rather, you are an average ignorant hindu, with Vishnu as Ishta Devata. Anyone who says Vishnu is Supreme should accept Sastra. You don't know one kalyana guna of Brahman. Not just one way. Adi Sankara and Sayana take one approach, Sri Ramanujar adopts another approach and Madhva takes yet another entirely different approach. And all of them end up with the same result, that Sri Hari is Supreme. Shiva Purana is not pramana. So stop bleating about it. I am tired of talking about Tamasic Puranas, its all these people can come up with. EDIT: I think I have done enough here. These people are not really going to change, so there's no point in me debating with them. The sole reason I debated with them was to ensure that neutral people looking for information about our tradition will not be mislead by these misinformed bozos. I think that's the greatest damage that these hindus will cause. Vishnu Sarvottama is firmly endorsed by the Veda. I don't care if you accept it or not. Without reading Vaishnava literature and giving it a sincere try, posing one ridiculous question after another is the main object of these people. In any case, I am out of this thread.

Then, explain the verses that say Isana is absent during pralaya, that Rudra gets his strength from Vishnu, the Shathapatha Brahmana verses detailing the birth of Rudra, the verses saying Lakshmi makes whoever she wants as Rudra and Brahma, and the verses that say Rudra cannot understand the actions of savitr. Your stupidity also ignores the glaring verses that say Rudra was born from Narayana in Mahanarayana Upanishad, whereas, Vishnu's birth is not mentioned. Your ignorance also tends to gloss over the fact that Purusha Suktam calls the Purusha as Lakshmipathi. Rudra gets his strength from Vishnu. Rig Veda 7.40.5 shows Rudra asking for a boon from Vishnu. Thus, both cannot be equal. Hence, one of them is subordinate. Shruti identifies Vishnu as Narayana. Narayana Suktam says, 'Narayana is Brahma, Siva, Indra'. This means that Brahma, Shiva and Indra are amsas, endowed with powers of Brahman (refer Sayana's commentary). If Shiva=Vishnu, and Narayana was a distinct entity, the verse should have said 'Narayana is Brahma, Shiva, Vishnu, Indra'. However, Narayana Suktam identifies Vishnu with Narayana. Panini says Shiva cannot be a name of Narayana. NAkaara in Narayana pertains to Vishnu alone. You do not dispute what Panini said, and you disagree with Vaishnava acharyas who simply followed Panini's rules? Brilliant. Even common sense explains that there cannot be an amsa of Brahman who is all-pervading. How can Brahman give his all-pervasive power to an 'aspect'? When an entity is all-pervading, it can only be Brahman and nothing else. Appaya Dikshitar was a saivite who tried to prove Shiva=Vishnu. He failed due to the NAkaara factor alone, and admits it as well. And how many times do I have to pound it into your dumb head that Vaishnava acharyas do not say this, rather Panini himself says so? It violates basic sanskrit grammar. Sri Ramanujacharya proves gramatically that Shiva cannot be Brahman. Sri Madhvacharya follows an entirely different approach, and he too proves that Narayana is Vishnu. Who made you an authority? Your stupid life history shows that you regard Shiva Purana, Newspapers and TV Serials as pramana.

I have listened to discourses on it by Sri Velukkudi Krishnan Swami. Sri Ramanujacharya's is the definitive Bhashya, IMO. He delves into the Lord's ananta kalyana gunas completely and thoroughly. Consider this - He interprets the simple word 'Mam' as Swamitvam, Vatsalyam, Sousheelyam and Soulabhyam!!

(EDIT) The story speaks for itself. Vishnu is supreme as per sastra. If you want to flout Panini's grammar, which was followed by all Vedantins in their commentaries on the Prasthna Trayam, be my guest, as sanskrit certainly doesn't depend on your ridiculous opinions and it exposes your ignorance. I couldn't care less about what you believe or what you don't believe.

Good. Then say that the meaning of 'Repetitive' is 'Slow' or 'Fast'. Avinash, I suspect you are simply arguing for fun. In which case, you are classed as a prize jackass. Narayana is all pervading. Vishnu also means all pervading. A diety can give His auspiciousness to another deity and still remain auspicious. But no deity can give His all-pervading power to another deity. Plus, there cannot be two all-pervading deities. That Vishnu is Narayana is proven by Shruti and by Panini's Grammar. There is no mention of Vishnu being born or created by Narayana. Both Brahma and Shiva are mentioned to have sprung from Narayana. Purusha Suktam identifies Narayana as Lord of Lakshmi. Narayana is also identified as the 'Being on the Ocean' in Mahanarayana Upanishad (quoted by Sri Ramanujar), and is mentioned to have no-one above Him. Narayana Suktam identifies Vasudeva and Vishnu (Vyuhas) as avatars. I suggest you consult Sanskrit Pundits. But if you are arguing just for fun and are really a Vaishnava (as you claimed)...well done, you have committed apachara to Vishnu. If you are really a zealous nitwit without a knowledge of grammar, I suggest you refer scholars for this.

I could name anyone Rudra and he won't become Rudra. What sort of stupid comparison is this? This reveals that you know nothing about Sanskrit or Vedanta. What is the purpose of arguing? Naming has nothing to do with this. Just like one can say two words 'Repetitive' and 'Redundant' in English language have the same meaning, 'Narayana' is interlinked with Vishnu. And Veda affirms this by saying, Eko ha vai Naaraayana Na brahma nesaanaha" and "Apahatapaapma Divyo devaha Eko Naaraayana:" There was only Narayana, no Brahma, no Shiva. This Narayana is free from defects. It doesn't say, there was no Vishnu. Only Brahma and Shiva. Veda follows the rules of grammar. That the term "Naaraayana" is a particular noun identifying the Lord of Goddess Lakshmi and Bhoomi is given in Purusha Suktam"Hereeshca Te Lakshmischa Patniyow" in Veda. Vishnu is the Lord of Lakshmi and Bhu Devi. So shut it. Without a proper knowledge of sanskrit, a language which has been used by so many Vedantins for many years, you have the nerve to post your stupid opinions. EDIT: Just one question, Avinash. You don't agree to this, huh? Exactly what change do you think this will make to the sanskrit language? I think this is pretty much the zenith of sentiment. The laws of sanskrit, enforced by the language itself say something. This guy here says that he does not accept it because he 'disagrees'. I don't really think it can get any worse. No sense arguing with people who are so unaware of philosophy, debating skills and proper use of words. Stick to your 'Shiva Purana'. That's about all you can do. (I have edited offensive words for Mod's sake).

Dude, your ignorance is astonishing. You think Vaishnava acharyas introduced the rule that Narayana is a proper noun? ITS A LAW OF SANSKRIT. NOBODY CAN FLOUT IT. JUST LIKE THE WORD 'CLEVER' IS AN ADJECTIVE IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, THIS IS ALSO A LAW IN SANSKRIT LANGUAGE. NOBODY CREATED IT. Good Lord, you are completely hopeless. What do you think, Vaishnavas invented the sanskrit language and deliberately linked Narayana to Vishnu? 'NArAyaNa', according to proper sanskrit, is a monopoly of Vishnu. The final 'Na' makes it a monopoly as per Panini Sutra: 'pUrvapadAt samgyAyAm agaH' Similar is the word 'rAmAyaNa' which will refer only to the story about Lord Rama and not that of any other Rama. Brahma Sutras confirm it. No Shaiva can ever flout it, it is a basic rule of Vedanta. So, they ignore it altogether. Very convienient. It renders all your arguments invalid. The ignorance of Avinash is there for all to see. Rig Veda 7.099.02 ná te viSNo jaáyamaano ná jaató déva mahimnáH páram ántam aapa úd astabhnaa naákam RSvám bRhántaM daadhártha praáciiM kakúbham pRthivyaáH "No being that is or that has been born(includes Shiva or Rudra), divine Vis.n.u, has attained the utmost limit of your magnitude by which you have upheld the vast and beautiful heaven, and sustained the eastern horizon of the earth." So no more useless deliberations upon this topic. Learn Brahma Sutras first and then argue about Brahman. Without knowing anything about the characteristics of Brahman, doing arguments upon this topic is just like building storeys upon no foundation. "nArAyaNAt param nAsti, na nArAyaNa samAnam"

Avinash says that I take verses that cast doubts on Shiva's Supremacy at face value. Let us examine the claim and shut him up once and for all. In the Verses that say Shiva was born, the names 'Pasupati', 'Isana', 'Rudra' are clearly given (and Ganeshprasad's illogical arguments of this deva being Agni have been explained). If we assume the etymology here, it will mean, 1) Lord of animals (Pasupati) was born, and he had sins (papa). 2) The Ruler (Isana) was born, and he had sins. And so on. Now, tell me, does this mean Brahman was born and he had sins? No. Hence, here, we HAVE to take the literal meaning, that Isana, Pasupati indicates a Deva. This Deva is Shiva and nobody else. Now, another verse says, Rudra gets his Rudra Strength from Vishnu. (Rig Veda 7.40.5) According to Avinash, if we take this to mean, 'The destroyer of misery' gets his power to destroy misery from Vishnu. This doesn't make sense. Why should someone who is already named 'Destroyer of Misery' get the power to destroy misery from someone else? So, again, we literally have to interpret Rudra as a deva who gets his powers from Vishnu. And since this deva is already mentioned to have a birth, its clear now. Consider another verse that denigrates Rudra, 'eko nArAyaNa AsIt.h na brahmA na IshAnaH 'Only Narayana existed, and neither Brahma nor Isana were present'. We know Narayana is Brahman. Now, let us assume that this 'Isana' is not Shiva. 'Isana' means 'Ruler'. Then we have, 'Only Narayana existed, and neither Brahma nor the Ruler were present'. I'd like Avinash to kindly use his brains here. Does this sentence make sense? Isana is mentioned to be the foremost of 11 Rudras, ie, Sankara. Hence, once again, the literal meaning is to be taken. However, in verses saying 'Rudra is Supreme', or 'Shiva is Supreme' there is no ambiguity. Since it is proven that Mahadeva is not supreme, one can interpret it as, 'Supreme one is auspicious' or 'The destroyer of misery is Supreme'. In any case, Mahanarayana Upanishad clears all doubts. Avinash, when you argue, make sure you have substance, and verify that you are arguing sensibly. Otherwise, there is a chance that you will be embarassed. So far, the great debators who have disagreed with me are only those who quote tamasic puranas and Ramacharitramanasa as Pramana.

And once again, you exhibit complete ignorance by claiming this. How many times do I need to explain this? Shiva is Supreme is taken to mean that the Supreme Being is 'Auspicious'. Mahadeva does not even come into the picture here. We interpret some verses glorifying Agni, Indra, Mahadeva as glorifying the indweller. The Rig Veda clearly says that Rudra prays to the one located in the cave of his heart (see Sayana's translation I posted earlier). <!-- / message --><!-- sig --> Rig Veda 7.40.5 says Shiva gets his Rudra Strength by praying to Vishnu. So how can you interpret Shiva as the indweller of Vishnu, or as greater than Vishnu? Narayana, as explained earlier cannot be name of deva Shiva due to rules in Panini's grammer and you seem to completely ignore all points I made earlier. There are other powerful irrefutable arguments. No verse has been skipped by Vaishnavites in providing their proof - it is always interpreting properly. The interpretation always assumes that Brahman is Narayana (which cannot be refuted in anyway you want), and wherever there are references to Shiva or Indra or anyname that refers to Brahman, it is interpreted as Narayana - because all these names are applicable to Narayana, the supreme of all. Narayana Suktam identifies Vishnu as an avatar of Narayana. Purusha Suktam identifies the Purusha as the consort of Sri. If you interpret Vishnu as a name of Shiva, first of all, you will have to say that Vishnu is the 'all-pervading' aspect of Shiva. Which is ridiculous because it means Shiva is Brahman, but some amsa is doing the job of being all-pervading!! 'All-Pervading' itself is a trait of only Brahman. And that is Vishnu. 1) There is no verse that claims that Vishnu has a birth,or that He has an indweller. 2) Narayana is unambiguously identified as Brahman everywhere. 3) Purusha Suktam identifies Hree and Lakshmi as the consorts of the Purusha. 4) Vishnu is hailed as 'unborn' in Rig Veda. 5) 'Om tad Visnoh Paramapadam' signifies the supremacy of Vishnu. 6) Saying Shiva is Brahman needs us to override Satapatha Brahmana, the verse saying Isana-Mahadeva was born from Narayana, that Isana is absent during pralaya, that Lakshmi can make anyone Brahma or Rudra, that Rudra does not understand the actions of Savitr (showing that he is not omniscient). In order to claim you can interpret Vishnu to mean Shiva, first you need to override the Purusha Suktam, identifying Lakshmipathi Narayana as supreme. And Narayana Suktam informs us, 'Narayana is Indra, Brahma, Shiva' (Sa Indra, Sa Brahma, Sa Shiva). Note, it doesn't say Narayana is Vishnu, Indra, Brahma, Shiva. Hence, this verse signifies that while Indra, Brahma and Shiva are amsas, Narayana is Vishnu Himself. There is no verse that casts any doubt on Vishnu's Supremacy. Only Rudra's birth is mentioned. Tell me, where does any portion of the Veda indicate any sort of vulnerability on the part of Vishnu? It is clear as crystal from Satapatha Brahmana and Mahanarayana Upanishad that Narayana as indweller of Brahma creates the Rudras. Hence, 'Rudra' is a post, a title, and a name that is originally the name of Brahman. Therefore, only Rudra is applied to Vishnu and not vice versa. abrahma-bhuvanal lokah punar avartino 'rjuna mam upetya tu kaunteya punar janma na vidyate (Bhagavad Gita 8.16) From the highest world of Brahma down to the lowest, all are places of misery wherein repeated birth and death take place. But one who attains to My abode, O son of Kunti, never takes birth again. So, Avinash, are you saying that Narayana is not Vishnu? That's funny, because it violates the basic rules of sanskrit. Have you ever heard of any scholar claiming that Narayana is not Vishnu? Chandogya Upanishad further adds, 'The eyes of Brahman are like two newly blossomed lotuses, in the rays of the Sun'. Anyone can understand that 'Pundarikaksha' (lotus eyed) is a name of Vishnu. Furthermore, it says Brahman has two eyes, not three. Rules out Shiva.

Even I am capable of refuting these stupid claims of Shaivites. Imagine what a real Vedantin would do. Rudra is a name of Vishnu. Already explained. And Vishnu is the best among gods. He is mentioned as the origin of Devas, as Self-Born, as having no equal, etc. in many places in Rig Veda. These mantras do pertain to the Mahadeva. But since it has already been explained that Rudra has an indweller, and that Narayana created Rudra, this is easily reconciled by saying that these mantras pertain to the indweller. In fact, Sri Rudram Chamakam supports it. Some scholars use another method to explain this. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad calls all of creation as the body of Brahman. Since Brahman is Vishnu, and the devas are a part of creation, these mantras then glorify a deva named Rudra, who is one of the angas (limbs) of Vishnu. Since Vishnu is the soul of His body, it follows that the name of the body can be applied to the Soul. There are multiple ways to defeat Shaivites. Wrong, the Purusha Sukta calls the Purusha as the consort of Lakshmi and Hree. Hence, 'Purusho vai Rudra' again refers to Vishnu alone, and not Rudra. Typical Shaivite logic. The 'main deity' of Rk, Sama, Yajur, Atharva is Vishnu, and not any other deva. Agni is applicable to all devas, and not necessarily the firegod. Indra is associated with Rudra in two cases, 1) Indra fights with Mahadeva, 2) Sometimes, Vishnu is the one referred to as Rudra. Shathapatha Brahmana has been explained by me. And the thousand eyed god-hymn also has the word 'Girisanta', which refers to Vishnu as indweller, I believe. Vaishnava acharyas have clarified that as well. Sayana does not calll this Lord as Mahadeva, but Shaivites take it to be so. Sayana understands that this Rudra was given the name Bhava upon his birth in Satapatha Brahmana. So, here Bhava refers to the Supreme Lord, who according to Rg veda, is the owner of all names. Bhava and Sarva here refer to Vishnu. As Krishna says in Gita, 'Creation, Preservation and Destruction are done by Me alone'. Soma is the juice that strengthens all devas. It is a stretch to say only Rudra is identical with Soma, when both Agni and Indra are also shown to gain strength from it. Vishnu is also identified with Soma. Calling this pillar a Shiva-Linga has no backing. Nowhere is this pillar even hinted to be a Linga. Rudra refers to Vishnu, in Svet.Up. Adi Sankara translates 'Mahesvara' as 'Lord of the Worlds'. He then says, Vishnu is Mahesvara!! Again, make the same mistake. 'Shiva' means 'Auspicious One'. Hence, the verse simply says Brahman is auspicious. No mention of Mahadeva here. To conclude with, Shaivism is a crock of nonsense, and has no Vedic backing. Shaiva Agamas and Shiva Purana are the only texts these people can rely on. Sri Yamunacharya has authored a brilliant work in which he proves that Vaishnava Pancharatra Agamas are alone the essence of the Veda. Although Vaishnavas accept that Shaiva Agamas have their origin in Shiva, it has no Vedantic backing, and is simply meant for worship of Shiva.

Great work. Is that the best answer you can give me? Ignoramus, your opinions violate the basic laws of sanskrit grammar, and cleanly flouts many verses of the Veda. When I point this out to you, you talk of 'truth staring me in the face'? Tell me, have you ever read any Bhashyas, or attended any discourses on philosophy? You can't even express your views properly, as you appear to be illiterate. What's worse is, your brain is completely unable to comprehend philosophy. So, when I explain the Soul/Body concept to you, it seems as if you can't even understand any learned posts. So, basically, arguing with you is like arguing with a dead fish....no reaction or response at all. Vivid imagination? Oh, I suppose the greats like Sayanacharya, Adi Sankaracharya, Ramanujacharya, Madhvacharya, etc. all had vivid imaginations? And I suppose Ganeshprasad, who can't even write in proper english, knows more than all of these acharyas put together? I suppose you want to write a Bhashya on Brahma Sutras? NOBODY in the history of Vedanta has ever used Shiva Purana as authority. NO acharya, not one. Even Shaivas like Appaya Dikshitar stuck to Shruti (and failed miserably). Why did Hari take time to come as Buddha and delude so many people? Same reason. Some people (like you, obviously), are not ready to understand the kalyana gunas of the Lord due to Karma. Hence, the Lord out of his kindness, gives them temporary faiths to follow (refer Bhagavad Gita). Once their Karmas are cleansed, they get births where they attain realisation. Truth is there in the Veda, yet you reject it. Vaishnavas have no bias. We don't have an agenda to prove X or Y is supreme, but rather, examine the scripture to reach the conclusion. Scripture declares that Hari is Supreme. -- OK, I will be more civil here. Admin5 told me to cool it, but its really infuriating, talking to a dead fish like Ganeshprasad. He just can't understand anything about Vedanta. Matsya Purana says, 'The Puranas that glorify Hari are Sattvik, those that glorify Brahma are Rajasic and those that glroify Shiva are Tamasic. Padma Purana quotes Shiva as saying the same thing to Parvati. So, Vyasa has explained it to us. Tamasic Puranas have a purpose. Do you know why Shiva is called 'Pasupati'? He obtained a boon from Vishnu, whereby those people, who are not cleansed of Karma, would worship him mistakenly as supreme. These people, after many births of worshipping Shiva, will worship Krishna. Now, I probably have been given the grace of Vishnu to understand this. But since you don't, it is clear that you have fallen into a trap. So, understand, I am not a 'Shiva Dveshi'. I am telling the truth. Shiva is not tamasic, but he is an exalted jivatma. Shiva Purana is misleading, and hence tamasic. Vishnu misleads as Buddha. Vishnu, therefore, is capable of misleading anyone./ First of all, there is no concept of 'Ishta Devta' in Vedanta. The Rig Veda itself talks of a hierarchy, so the idea of anyone choosing any god is ridiculous. Only the likes of Neovedantins and mordern Advaitins follow this stupid concept. So, stretching this Ishta Devta concept, one can say that by worshipping even a cat or a dog one can get moksha. Idiocy. This is why Shaivism is rejected as unvedic. Rudra, in sanskrit, has 3 meanings: - He who destroys misery. - He who makes others cry. - He who howls. Now, Rig Veda says, all names belong to Brahman (note, it doesn't say all Gods are same). Hence, 'Rudra' here simply pertains to Vishnu, as Vishnu is the giver of bliss, He destroys misery, He makes His bhaktas cry (out of joy). Shaivism is unvedic. And you ignore the Satapatha Brahmana verse that says 'Rudra has papa' whereas you take this Rudra to be Shiva? Rest of your nonsense is similar. Since all names are applicable to Vishnu, there is absolutely no doubt that any hymn glorifying Shiva pertains to Vishnu. And even if a hymn calls Shiva 3 eyed, and calls him Brahman, it is understood that Narayana is the indweller, as pramanas exist for it. Shaivites take all names such as 'Shiva' or 'Rudra' literally and assume its Mahadeva. Its actually Vishnu. Refer Sahasranama, where Vishnu is called 'Rudra' and 'Shiva'. And yes, there are some verses that call Mahadeva as supreme. But since there are other verses that say he has had a birth, and hence a beginning, being part of Narayana's creation, it can be reconciled as follows - Verses glorifying Devas are simply meant for the indweller who is Vishnu. Veda supports this conclusion. Rig Veda says Rudra has an indweller, Mahanarayana Upanishad says he was created by Narayana (indweller of Brahma), Rig Veda also says he lacks Jnana to understand Savitr, Satapatha Brahmana says, He was not cleansed of sins as a child and Rig Veda says he prays to Vishnu for his Rudra-Strength. So, hymns like the Sri Rudram, first glorify the deva, but the prayer is simply meant for Narayana, who is Parabrahman. Since Shaivites can't refute this, they put out stupid claims like, 'Oh, archaeology says Pasupata religion is oldest'. Ganeshprasad, do you believe that our Ithihasas are true? If so, Krishna came in Dwapara Yuga, Rama in Treta Yuga, etc. Hence, Vaishnavism, and every other Vedic religion is eternal, irrespective of archaeology. So, therefore, stop quoting stupid Shaivite interpretations. 1)Ramanujacharya and Madhvacharya provide sufficient pramanas to refute Shaivites, 2) Adi Sankara himself defeated a Kapalika, and called the Pasupata religion as unvedic. Instead, he actually accepts the Vaishnava religion as authentic. Refer to his Brahma Sutra Bhashya. Let me break Ganeshprasad's stupid theology apart: He contends that: - Satapatha Brahmana talks about Agni. - That the Kumara is not evil. - That Brahma 'created' Gods!! Let us examine the evidence. - Sanskrit word 'Papa' means Sin. Hence, the Kumara is sinful. No evading this. - Since the Kumara was born with sins, it follows that he is jiva, and not Brahman, or an avatar, or whatever. - Therefore, it is proven that Brahma does not create 'Gods' but rather only material bodies. Now, let us examine the identity of this Kumara, - This Kumara is called one of the forms of Agni. - We know, from Aitreya Brahmana, that 'Among Devas, Agni is the lowest and Vishnu is highest. - However, this Kumara becomes Mahadeva, Isana (ruler), etc. Hence, it is inferred that a low deva like Agni could never get such power. - So, we turn to etymology - Agni means sacrifice, or the foremost person. - Proof is also provided in Rig Veda, which says, ANY deva, including Brahman, can be called 'Agni'. Refer my earlier post for this. - Therefore, it is clear that this Mahadeva is not Agni, the firegod. - Hence, the Mahadeva, who goes by the name of 'Isana', 'Pasupati' and 'Ugra' is none other than Shiva. Now, let us turn to the issue of whether Devas are paramatma or jivatma, - It has been proven that the Kumara is Shiva. - So, it means, Shiva is a jiva who rose to the position of Mahadeva. - This means, all devas are jivas. - All devas are mentioned as 'Created' by Vishnu. Hence, they are not avatars, or anything special. They are included as a part of creation (shrishti) with sun, moon, etc. Hence, they are Jivas. So, Ganeshprasad is found to be completely in line with Vyasa's quote - the Ignorant are mislead and follow Tamasic Puranas. His ignorance,disrespect for Vedanta and complete disregard for pramanas and logic has been exposed. Nobody can argue with a person like Ganeshprasad who doesn't know the etymology of the Veda, or the means of debating, or how to take statements which are contradictory and thread them together. Ganeshprasad is the typical example of why our culture is going downhill. No hindu nowadays makes the effort to understand Veda. Hindus like Ganeshprasad have no knowledge of Veda, or our great tradition of polemics, as they have been brainwashed by Vivekananda, Ramakrishna and all those pseudo-sadhus. Its blind faith all the way, and its detrimental. Ganeshprasad is a disgrace to Vedanta. I advise him to stop torturing the Vedas this way.