Dark Warrior

I didn't say Ramacharitramanas is bad. I love it myself, great piece of devotional literature. But asserting that Rama worshipped Shiva just because Tulasidas said so, is not a pramana.

Let me just say one thing - Shruti is absolutely clear on who is the Supreme Deity. Kimfelix does not understand the basic etymology of the Veda. According to him, Svetasvatara Upanishad is a 'Shaivite Text' because it says Rudra is the Supreme Being. Both Sri Ramanujacharya and Sri Madhvacharya have used the pramanas that I have. So, according to Kimfelix, considering Shiva Purana as tamasic and interpreting Brihadaranyaka the Vaishnavite way is a 'misinterpretation'. This, coming from a guy who thinks Krishna is not a 'Vedic God'!! So far, the persons who have argued wih me are Ganesprasad (Who thinks Ramacharitramanas is a Pramana), Avinash (who plays games with scripture) and Kimfelix (Who lacks the basic knowledge of etymology). In some places Veda calls Rudra as supreme. In other places, Veda calls Rudra as a part of creaton. We believe that Shruti is consistent in all portions and hence the reconciliation occurs if we follow the etymology as suggested by the laws of sanskrit, and use our brains to apply them wherever it seems fit.

You are getting quite annoying. First, you misunderstand what makes a 'reference' and what isn't, then you misundertand what is a sattvik and what is a tamasic Purana, and lastly, you accuse me of 'misinterpreting'. In the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad [1.4.11] describes the creation of the 'Shiva' as the presiding deity of kshatriyas: yAnyetAni devatrA kshatrANIndro varuNaH somo rudraH..' and uses the word rudra to describe shiva. It later describes the creation of other 10 rudras as presiding deity of vaishyas: yAnyetAni devajAtAni gaNasha AkhyAyante vasavo rudrA AdityA vishve devA maruta iti | Notice the plural here 'rudrAH' and the singular 'rudra' in the earlier para. The point is that scripture refers to Shiva as Rudra.

Sri Ramanujar accepts this as a legitimate way, but he also posits a different idea. According to him, not everyone is capable of remembering the Lord at the time of Death. A devotee may be taken sick, or may lose all consciousness at the time of death. He may not be in a state to even remember his own name, let alone chant the name of the Lord. Consider Jada Bharata. A great devotee of the Lord, but unfortunately, he could only remember his pet deer at the time of his death. His next birth was that of a deer. So, Sri Ramanujar interprets 'Sarva Dharman Parityajya....' as Saranagati. According to Sri Vaishnavism, if a devotee expresses his incapability to follow such protocol, and sincerely tells the Lord how incompetent he is to perform such sadhana, then there is no need for him to worry about remembering the Lord at the time of death. So, instead of worrying about your efforts, it is better to do saranagati and express your inability to do it. The Lord Himself will come to you at the time of death, even if you haven't chanted Hare Krishna 300,000 times in your life. Of course, this doesn't mean one should stop chanting!! It only means, a truly surrendered soul will not worry about remembering the Lord at the time of death by his own efforts and will leave it to the Lord.

Vedas are not there for 'forming your own opinion', you clod. WE should follow the opinion of the Vedas, not vice versa. And the Vedas talk about Sri Hari only. Your incapability to understand the basic concepts of our scripture is remarkable. So, we will just ignore those pramanas because it 'hurts our feelings'? No wonder Hinduism is ridiculed by outsiders. With representatives like Ganeshprasad, there is absolutely no hope of maintaing its dignity. Here are the Shathapatha Brahmana verses, that Ganeshprasad thinks pertains to Agni, and not to Rudra. . 6:1:3:1010. He said to him, 'Thou art Rudra 2.' And because he gave him that name, Agni became suchlike (or, that form), for Rudra is Agni: because he cried (rud) therefore he is Rudra. He said, 'Surely, I am mightier than that: give me yet a name! Ganeshprasad, you need to learn the etymology of the Veda. Agni is also a common noun, because it can be interpreted to mean, 'The foremost person'. In that sense, whenever a Deva's prowess is being talked about, he can be called 'Agni'. In normal convention, indra refers to Purandara, Agni refers to fire, Rudra refers to the Lord of Uma, AkAsha refers to the sky and so on. The next level of convention is yoga (or yaugika artha). In this, the etymological meaning of the word is considered. By etymological considerations, deva refers to a person who is radiant, indra refers to a being who has aishvarya, agni refers to a person who is foremost, rudra refers to a being who causes the wicked to suffer, AkAsha refers to the Being who provides space for operation and so on. This boy cannot be Agni, because Satapatha Brahmana goes on to say how this boy became Isana (Ruler), Mahadeva (Great among Devas) and attained control over nature. Because, veda already has said, 'Of Devas, Agni is lowest and Vishnu is highest'. Hence, it would be foolish to think Agni has this much power. Get it? In case you do not accept this explanation, it is substantiated further in Shathapatha Brahmana, which says, 'Skanda is the Son of Rudra, and the ninth form of Agni'. This proves that Agni here means 'Foremost Person'. Answer a simple question - When you don't accept that this person named Isana, Mahadeva, Rudra, is born of Brahma, then on what basis do you think that the verses saying, 'Rudra is Supreme' pertains to Mahadeva? To summarise: 1) Rudra is mentioned as sinful, and has a birth. 2) Isana, Mahadeva, Pasupati are the names Brahma gives to his son Rudra. 3) Since these Devas are attained by Tapas, they are referred to as forms of Agni. If you assume that this Rudra is not Shiva, despite his names as Mahadeva, Isana, Pasupati, then you have no right to assume that the verses saying 'Rudra is Supreme' pertains to your beloved deity, Shiva, as well. 4) Mahanarayana Upanishad clearly states that Isana-Mahadeva, with a Trident, and 3 Eyes, was born from Narayana. Therefore, this Upanishad clears up whatever doubts the Satapatha Brahmana may have aroused, as it explicitly mentions the birth of Mahadeva. 5) The Mahanarayana Upanishad (from the taittariiya) says that the Being, whom the wise refer as Brahman (tadeva brahma paramaM kavInAm.h), who rests on the Ocean (yamantaH samudre kavayo vayanti) is the parAtpara and explicitly says that there exists nothing beyond Him: ataH paraM nAnyad. 6) The Brihadaaranyaka too is niravakAsha: In 1.4.11, the birth of rudra is mentioned and in 1.4.12, it speaks of birth of rudrAs. Thus, the one born first must be the foremost of them, which is Umapati Shankara. 7) Subala Upanishad says Narayana is free of faults. Conclusion - Rudra is a Jiva based on the evidence. Narayana is Supreme.

In the beginning, before every pralaya. It is true that time is cyclical, but beginning is simply understood to be the beginning before every shristi (creation). Terrific, so we won't go there, eh? Ignore all pramanas. That verse pertains only to Rudra. Not Agni. Ugra, Isana and Pati are clearly given. Acharyas have quoted this verse and established it as Shiva. Other verses that specify Rudra's absence during pralaya clearly prove it. Going by your logic, then there is no need to assume that 'Rudra is Supreme' pertains to this Shiva only either. See how it works? As it so happens, no acharya has ever adopted the stupid logic of this Rudra being Agni. Even the likes of Sayana stick to the formula of Vaishnavas. Brahma creates the material bodies. The atma cannot come from Brahma's mind. By tapas, he attains Isana as his son. When Brahma does tapas, Narayana forces an atma into the body of Isana-Rudra, created by Brahma. Rest assured, no acharya ever sees Isana as different from Shiva. There is absolutely no pramana that says Isana is not Shiva. Bhagavad Gita, during the Vishwaroopa chapter, clearly quotes Arjuna as saying, 'I see Brahma and Isana'. 'Kesava' is a name that arises due to the fact that Ka (Brahma) and Isa (Shiva) are the limbs of Vishnu. 'eko nArAyaNa AsIt.h na brahmA na IshAnaH' (which say that Rudra did not exist in the beginning) also mentions Isana. Mahanarayana Upanishad says, "Again, Narayana, desiring something else, thought. From his forehead a person arose with three eyes and a trident, having glory, fame, truth, celibacy, austerity, detachment, mind, lordship, seven Vyahritis along with Pranava, Rik and other Vedas, all metres is his body – so, he is the great Lord." Here, the Upanishad makes it very clear that the Ishana in the above verse is only the Mahadeva Rudra. The Narayana in this verse is the indweller of Brahma, so there is no contradiction when we say, 'Rudra came from Narayana's forehead', or 'Rudra is the son of Brahma'. The RV says that there is ONLY one God, who bears the names of all gods (it does not say all gods are same) -- yo devAnAM nAmadhA eka eva. Case closed.

Irrespective of whether Srila Prabhupada really believed it or not, I feel that even Hare Krishnas who have not shed their christian sentiments are saved. Simply because, Lord Krishna Himself would not expect a great deal from them. Think about it - a while ago, these devotees would have been unable to even pronounce Lord Krishna's name. But by the grace of Srila Prabhupada, they sing about Him and accept Him. Granted, they have changed Krishna's identity (saying He is different from Vishnu, etc.), and still have sentiments for Jesus, but nonetheless...their sankirtan and acceptance of Vishnu would fetch them more benefits than anything that a traditional Vaishnava like myself would ever get. Since I, for instance, am a traditional Vaishnava, the Lord would expect me to keep up with the sampradaya, and reward me accordingly. But what converts do is a massive change from their original tendencies, so the Lord favors them more. As for Srila Prabhupada, despite his mistakes, let us not forget that he is the acharya for all Westerners. Consider his Gita - I'd say he is not 100% accurate, and may not accept his translations, but however imperfect it is, there is some great bhakti about it that is really infectious. It is this bhakti that makes Srila Prabhupada truly an avatar. Even I have a copy of his Gita and read it sometimes just to taste that bhakti. It is a sad fact that whenever you pick up english translations of Mahabharata or Bhagavatam, the commentator will start by saying, 'This is great stuff, but its mythology, its not real, etc..' It really irritates a bhakta to see such introductions. Srila Prabhupada, however, shows great sincerity and bhakti. Remember the Mahabharata episode. Vidura, in his bhakti, offers Krishna banana peels and throws away the fruit accidentally. Yet, Krishna quietly accepts it and eats the skins!! Similarly, Srila Prabhupada's little mistakes do not change the fact that his books are an immense service to Krishna Himself. Westerners who have scant knowledge, but who have accepted the lotus feet of Srila Prabhupada, are eligible for moksha by his grace.

Ganeshprasad, your determination is admirable but once again, you are absolutely unaware of current events. There are 2 versions of Mahanarayana Upanishad available currently. The advaitins follow a version that mentions consecration of Shiva Linga, and has an interpolation in the Narayana Suktam, 'Sa Hari'. How can we say that your version is spurious? Simple. 1) If you add 'Sa Hari' to the Narayana Suktam, the metre becomes incorrect and rhythm of the hymn falls, 2) Mantras for consecration on Shiva Lingam itself is bogus, as Veda NEVER talks about consecrating deities. Only Agamas are authorities on that. The other version does not contain any verses glorifying Shiva. This version is the one which has been commentated by authoritative scholars like Sayana. Even Adi Sankara was following this version. Only after the 17th century, have Advaitins started to follow the spurious version. Here is an article on the subject: Trust me, Vaishnavas have researched everything. Only Neovedantins follow such bogus versions of Upanishads, therby misleading everyone.

Tell me, why did Krishna forbid the Gokula people to worship Indra? Bhakti Yoga to Indra and Shiva are not enough for moksha. Same goes for a non-vedic religion like Christianity. And Sri Vaishnavas do not accept the definition of 'Bhakti-Yoga', as provided by Gaudiyas. Your inability to understand sampradayic differences is incredible. To Sri Ramanujacharya, the Bhakti-Yoga Sri Krishna outlines in the Gita is none other than the "nididhyAsana", "upAsana", and "vedana" repeatedly enjoined in the Upanishads and formalized in the Brahma-sutras. Each of the latter three terms means deep, undivided, loving contemplation on the Supreme Self. Lord Krishna, in His conversation with Arjuna, emphasized the "love" aspect more, and the Upanishads the "meditative", but it is evident from even a brief glance that the two must go hand in hand. What one loves, one seeks to know more and delve into deeper. However, I am not interested in arguing philosophy. I understand that there are differences. Hare Christnas believe that their theology is the be all and end all of Vaishnavism. I go. A 100 replies in that Jesus thread, followed by many other rebuttals provided by other members, have not succeeded in making you realise your incompetance. I hardly think my replies will be successful.

No aparadha on my part. There are differences in philosophy as far as schools of Vedanta are concerned, but I strictly maintain respect for every acharya, and any bhakta of Vishnu deserves this respect. There are many instances in our sastras where offenders of devotees have been punished severely. It is for this reason that a Vaishnava, be he a Madhva, Sri Vaishnava or Gaudiya Vaishnava, should maintain respect for other sampradayic personalities as well. That being said, of course, I disagree with BVT on various points. And 'God' is not even a Vaidika term, although we use it commonly. 'Brahman' is the ultimate Being. That is what I was trying to say, which cBrahma failed to comprehend.

Because moron, the christian 'God' is certainly not part of Vaishnavism. And which Gaudiya Vaishnava acharya prior to BVT mentioned that the Bible is Veda, or that Jesus is Vaishnava? Your 'God' does not conform to the Brahman of the Vedas and Upanishads. Therefore, 'God' is not part of Vaishnavism. The only relevance it has to this topic is that it proves your blind belief.

Same post in two threads? cBrahma is at it again. 'God' is not part of Vaishnavism. Actually, Vaishnavism is about recognising Brahman as Vishnu. First, define what God Jesus was talking about. Apparently, Bhaktivinode Thakura has forgotten to take into consideration that Vaishnavas have vehemently opposed personal Shaiva, Ganapatya and Shakta sects. Bhaktivinode Thakura also claims that Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu came in Sri Ramanujacharya's dreams, something that no Sri Vaishnava would ever accept. So, try to understand that an acharya's opinion is not a Pramana. You will no doubt, evade the whole point. Well, if you really want to believe in 'Christ-Loka', no-one's stopping you.

Look, you can refer it for yourself if you want. I am quite tired of this. Many Vaishnava scholars have published books on this subject, you can read them to understand this. There are enough verses detailing Rudra's birth as Brahma's son, and his subordinate position to Vishnu, such as the fact that he gets his 'Rudra strength' upon knowing Vishnu. Shaivites have this mental incapability to go beyond the 'Rudra is Supreme' verses. The reason why Shaivism is unvedic is because they simply reject or ignore key texts that proclaim the jiva status of Rudra. Only Shiva Purana is their claim to philosophy. I'd advise people like Avinash to refrain from doing things such as this: You seem to think that debating over Vishnu/Shiva is a game or something, and from this quote, it appears to me as though you adopt a frivolous attitude to our scriptures. Vyasa did not give us a compilation of Shruti for you to play games with. Understand, that proper knowledge of Shruti makes the difference between samsara and moksha. EDIT: As an afterthought, and in closing, here is the quote you wanted. I finish off here. atha puruSho ha vai naaraayaNo 'kaamayata prajaa sR^ijeyeti | naaraayaNaat praaNo jaayate manaH sarvendriyaaNi cha kha.m vaayur jyotir aapaH pR^ithivii vishvasya dhaariNii | naaraayaNaad brahmaa jaayate | naaraayaNaad rudro jaayate | naaraayaNaad indro jaayate | naaraayaNat prajaapatiH prajaayate | naaraayaNaad dvadashaadityaa rudraa vasavaH sarvaaNi chandaa.msi naaraayaNaad eva samutpadyante naaraayaNat pravartante naaraayaNe praliiyante | etad R^ig-vedo-shiro 'dhiite || naaraayaNopaniShad 1 || Naaraayana is the Supreme Lord. He desired, "I shall create children." From Naaraayana the life breath, mind, all the senses, either, air, fire, water, and earth, which maintains the universe, were born. From Naaraayana Brahmaa was born. From Naaraayana Shiva was born. From Naaraayana Indra was born. From Naaraayana Prajaapati was born. From Naaraayana the twelve Adityas, the Rudras, the Vasus, and all the Vedic hymns were born. From Naaraayana they were manifested. Into Naaraayana they again enter. This is the crown of the R^ig Veda (nArAayaNopaniShad 1).

A few problems arise: 1) The 'NAkaara' in Narayana is etymologically linked to Vishnu. Since Narayana is a proper noun, it cannot be applied to Shiva. Only Shiva can be considered as a name of Narayana. Remember 'Narayana vidmahe Vasudevaya dimahe tanno Vishnu prachodayat'. So, Shaivites will get stuck and will get this conclusion - that there are two Brahmans (Narayana and Shiva). This is illogical. And even Shiva as Brahman will not be supported by Shruti because of the following points, as below. 2) Birth of Shiva is mentioned. Birth of Narayana/Vishnu is not anywhere given. 3) Purusha Suktam identifies the eternal Purusha as the consort of Sri and Hri. Sri is Lakshmi. Hri is Bhu Devi. 4) Shiva is mentioned to be absent during Pralaya. 5) Shiva is also mentioned as being 'created' by Narayana. Thus, Narayana/Vishnu is Supreme. Rudra is his name. And where is this mentioned in the texts? Give me pramanas. All you have being quoting so far is that Bhagavata verse calling Shiva a Vaishnava. That could be any Shiva in any yuga, and not specifically th current Rudra. There are 11 Rudras. Sankara/Sada Shiva/Isana is the leader of those Rudras. Isana's birth and his faults are clearly mentioned in the Veda. Furthermore, 'Narayano Jayate Rudrah' here is in plural, which means, 'Narayana created Rudras'. So, all 11 Rudras are accounted for.

As it so happens, Bhagavad Ramanujacharya said, 'Do not worship Shiva. It is unvedic. Only Vishnu is Supreme'. Again, his argument is backed by sastras. There is no pramana in your quote to substantiate your argument. Shiva is different from Vishnu. That is established by sastras. To say that he is equal to Vishnu, or non-different, is ajnana. And if even Shiva worship is unvedic, there is no need to bring up Jesus.

This isn't about glory. Its about the avatars and the history of the Lord. If He had taken an avatar as Jesus, rest assured, the likes of Vyasa and Suka would have mentioned it. And I have already explained how Hari never does something that isn't in sastras Bhakti to Shiva or to the Christian God is useless. Only when you understand that the Lord has 4 hands, with conch, discus, mace and lotus, adorned with the Kaustubha Gem and Srivatsava mark, of bluish-blackish complexion....that is Bhakti. Nammalvar clearly says that Bhakti without Jnana may lead to a better birth, but not to moksha. Just a simple question - Do you accept Vyasa's description of the Supreme Lord as having 4 hands, etc.? If so, you will agree that bhakti to Shiva, who has matted locks, and a cobra, with a trident, or to a man named Jesus, is not legitimate according to scripture. No offense.

Only if its mentioned in scripture. Otherwise, we cannot make assumptions. Christians and Shaivas may worship God with devotion and sing about him, but our acharyas were all clear that we shouldn't consider them as bhaktas. Not unless their prayers are directed, with full jnana, to Vishnu. Sri Vaishnava acharyas have blasted many Shaivas, despite their bhakti to Shiva. Lack of Jnana is not acceptable. Call it sectarian, but its the truth. I am aware that you do not know whether to entirely believe that the Lord really has 4 hands, or whether our scriptures are metaphorical and simply illustrate the 'greatness of a supreme being who is personal'. Which is pretty much the reason for your doubts.

There was no such thing as 'foreign tradition' in olden times. Everyone was included within the Vedic tradition. If you notice, Egyptians, Romans and Pagans were worshipping nature. Sun-God, Moon-God, Jupiter, Mars, etc. This is sanctioned by Vedic Literature. Hence, their prayers reach and are ultimately satisfied by the mercy of Vishnu. Vaishnavism was not the only religion even during the time of Rama or Krishna. Buddhism, Advaita, Shaivism, etc. are all eternal. Vaishnavas will always remain a minority even if its the Krita Yuga. Only after the advent of Christianity and Islam, these nature worshippers were converted. Man-Made Religions. Yet, of course, it is Vishnu who receives the prayers of Christians. But that doesn't make the religion 'transcendental', it is just the Lord's willingness to accept anything. Understand, Jesus could be a purna avatar of Chandra, Surya, Indra or any faulty deva. But there is little probability that he was Vishnu, amsa or purna. I am all for universality of religion, but that doesn't mean one has to accept Jesus because 'his message is beautiful', as cBrahma and Theist claim.

Because, you blasphemous imbecile, Sugriva had already tested Rama's strength before the fight. Sugriva told Rama that Vali would only able to uproot one tree. Rama, to show He was stronger than Vali, uprooted all 7 trees. Rama could have easily befriended Vali and rescued Sita, because Ravana feared Vali. But instead, He chose to remain with Sugriva. That is His mahima (greatness) and you, a complete twit, can't realise it.

Jesus is not Shaktyavesa because: - A shaktyavesa avatar either talks about Hari (Narada) or remains silent on God (Buddha). Jesus talked of a God who could be Vishnu, Shiva or even Allah, Yahweh. No Shaktyavesa avatar deals in ambiguities. The reference in Bhagavatam to innumerable avatars pertains to the avatars like Rama, Narasimha, etc. of many previous yugas. It also pertains to the archa (murti) form of the Lord in temples. It also pertains to the indwelling Lord in everyone. So many Jivas, hence, so many indwellers as well. It is possible for Vishnu to do something that is not mentioned in Sastra. But He doesn't, in order to ensure that His devotees have full faith in sastra. That is why Krishna kept His promise to Shiva and worshipped the latter, even when He (Krishna) had no need to.

And there are Shrutis and Smritis that call Rudra sinful, and expose his faults. Why don't you take that at face value? Let me try to explain. Let us assume that you, Ganeshprasad, were born in 1970 or so. Let us assume that your parents named you 'Rudra'. Now, we have Vedic verses saying Rudra is supreme. Does this mean, Ganeshprasad is the one being referred to by these verses? No. Because, long before Ganeshprasad was named Rudra, there was already a Supreme Being with the name of Rudra. This Being is the one Veda talks about. Similarly, Shathapatha Brahmana shows that Rudra was the son of Brahma and that Brahma NAMED him Rudra. Hence, it follows that the vedic verses extolling Rudra are not talking about this Rudra. 'Rudra' means, 'He who destroys', 'Howler', etc. All these names are applicable to the Supreme Lord.' Veda says the Supreme Lord is Vishnu/Narayana at various points. No birth or depiction of Vishnu as having faults can be seen in Veda. Hence, it is only Vishnu who is being praised here. Moron, Valmiki wrote down how Narayana came as Rama and hid His divinity. Only the truly devoted can notice it. Saying Valmiki did not know Rama was god is enough to show your ignorance. Your wit needs some serious sharpening.

And like someone said before, Sri Madhva detected various spurious verses of the Mahabharata during his times. He then composed a commentary on the real Mahabharata. And since Madhva's Mahabharata version is absolutely correct in its portrayal of Vishnu as Supreme (which is as per Shruti), you first have to prove Vishnu is NOT supreme in Shruti to refute this version. You can quote all your references, but that doesn't make sense. Many publishers have released various versions of the Mahabharata. Some of these versions are ridiculous - like Krishna worshipping Ganesha, like Arjuna worshipping Shiva, like Ganesha writing Mahabharata, etc. Sri Vaishnava acharyas like Vedanta Desika and Periyavacchan Pillai have quoted authentic verses from Ramayana. Desikar's Raghuveera Gadyam is proof of that. So, simply naming the publisher is not my idea of a reference. Vaishnavas have published eloquent attacks on these false versions, and to date, no-one has refuted us. Makes you look foolish. And in order to judge whether X quote or Y quote is an 'interpolation', you have to give sufficient proof to show it. Shvu pointed out that Padma Purana calls 'Mayavada' misleading, yet no acharya has quoted it to refute Advaitins. Hence, it is indeed possible that this verse is an interpolation. Take the earlier example. I proved that Shiva Purana's claims of Rama worshipping Shiva are false, and not in the Ramayana. This means, Shiva Purana is misleading, and is blatantly lying. Padma Purana agrees with Valmiki and simply extends the story - that the Lord worshipped by Rama was none other than Ranganatha. Now, tell me, why should Sattva/Rajas/Tamas be an interpolation, when it has been proven that Shiva Purana and Brahmanda Purana are misleading? This sort of misinformation is most definitely Tamo Guna. First, give me proof to show this guna classification is an interpolation. Sentiments. Again, there is just too much soppiness in this thread. Prove from Shruti that Shiva=Vishnu, then we will see about accepting Smriti. As it turns out, you cannot. Raghu has patiently explained to you about the Svetasvatara Upanishad many times already. Yet, you fail to see the point.

Kimfelix needs to understand something - Vishnu is referred to as 'Supreme' by the Veda. Unambiguously. He lacks the ability to understand that all names such as 'Shambhu', 'Siva' and 'Rudra' pertain to Vishnu alone. Neither Shiva Purana nor Brahmanda Purana support Shruti. Only Sattvik Puranas support Shruti. And without a basic understanding of this, he accuses me of being 'unscholarly'. Quite frankly, I am tired of all these people who can't understand the very fundamentals of debate.

And exactly what 'other ones' have I given, which isn't authentic? How about pointing it out? All the verses I gave can be checked. It appears as though you are the only one who simply can't accept them. Tell me, who doesn't accept verses like Narayana is Parabrahman here? It is a common knowledge of Veda. Total lack of knowledge on your part, and you put on a scholarly guise, as well. I will tell you the definition of an interpolation: 1) It should contradict the theme of the scripture. 2) It should have not been quoted by any acharya. However, considering this verse: 1) Calling Shiva Purana tamasic is ok, because it conflicts with Veda. Only sattvik Puranas are consistent with Vedas. 2) Acharyas have quoted it. Sankaracharya has stuck to only Vishnu and Padma Puranas, and so has Sri Ramanujar. Sri Madhvar also accepts this. Nobody questioned them. Shaivites cannot accept this. Vaishnavites can easily accept it because it is just able to fit into the whole picture. Get it? First understand what is an 'interpolation'. Tamasic nature means denigrating Vishnu. Shiva Purana does exactly that. It makes Vishnu look inferior. Lord Krishna certainly explains that in Gita, 'Those deluded by atheistic and demonic views never attain Me, etc.' It is not demonic to consider anya devata as worshippable. But it is tamasic/demonic to denigrate and insult Vishnu. Shiva Purana does exactly that. It was revealed by Brahma in one of his tamasic moods. Now, again examine the evidence: 1) No acharya has quoted those verses. 2) Shiva Sahasranama has not been quoted by even the oldest commentators. Only Vishnu Sahasranama has been quoted. Hence, those verses cannot be accepted. And a general quote like, when Vishnu says, 'I am the Self of Shiva, Brahma' has always been interpreted as relative oneness, rather than absolute oneness. First, please understand philosophy and meaning of 'interpolation'. Then debate. EDIT: Yes, Krishna worshipped Shiva. But in Santi parva, he clearly tells Arjuna that it was due to a boon He gave Shiva, and even then, He was only worshipping Himself as the indweller of Shiva.

Brahmanda Purana is Rajasic. No-one has quoted it. Shiva Purana is Tamasic. No-one has quoted it. My Padma Purana version has been quoted. It is accepted as a Sattvik Purana. Furthermore, Valmiki Ramayana confirms that Rama worshipped Himself (Narayana/Vishnu) and that Rama gifted this 'priceless family heirloom' to Vibhishana (Labhdhvaa kula dhanam Raja Lankaam praayaat Vibhishana). Thus, Shiva Purana and Brahmanda Purana are to be rejected. Sorry, you have to do better.