Dark Warrior

Sure. Alvar means 'One who is immersed in Bhakti'. There were 12 alvars. As a result of their divine experiences, a torrent of divine hymns in chaste tamil poured out from them, which not only extolled the opulences of the Lord, but also contained the philosophy of Vishishtadvaita, which was the basis of Bhagavad Ramanujacharya's reasoning. I will post some of the english translations of the hymns in this thread if you wish. However, it surely won't be the same as knowing them in tamil.

This thread is actually quite funny. People simply become blind to pramanas when they see that its about their beloved deity, Shiva. That is why I have stopped arguing with them. In fact, some people are unable to differentiate between Valmiki Ramayana and Tulasidas' Ramayana, which shows that its futile to continue debate. Very Good. Pramanas please?

Trust me, they don't. Except the Gaudiyas.

The Sri Vaishnava alvars had perfect knowledge of almost all His opulences, in my humble opinion. And it was due to His wish to show Himself to them, and not due to their own endeavours. The Divya Prabandham shows this clearly.

Some Hare Christnas believe that it is wrong to even worship Rama, Narasimha and Trivikrama. Thus, they give Krishna a unique 'monotheistic' identity which in reality is not Vaishnavism at all. They also equate archa murtis of Vishnu with christian 'icons', but this is again a wrong comparison. The archa murti is not a representation of Vishnu. Once consecrated by proper agamic rules, the archa form is Vishnu Himself, who is amongst us, and even more accessible than the avatars themselves. Vaishnavism is worship of Vishnu, or as the Gaudiyas do, worship of Krishna with the knowledge that He is identical to Vishnu. Christians like cBrahma and Theist, however, maintain an exclusive 'christian bhakti' to Krishna, which denies them the opportunity of delving into the Lord's ananta kalyana gunas. The real issue with cBrahma here is that, he sees 'polytheism' as something unnatural. Typical christian behaviour. That's the way I see it. Even Srila Prabhupada probably knew this would happen, but of course, he believed that the name of Krishna would gradually make these people see the light.

I will end it. Atleast for myself. Avinash and co., it is clear that you are confused regarding the range of names used in the Veda, and how all of it can be attributed to Vishnu. So, by asking questions such as, 'How can the name 'Rudra' be applied to Vishnu?', you are simply asking me to define Vaishnavism. It isn't humanly possible for me to explain ALL the details regarding Vaishnavism. Vishnu Supremacy is unmistakeable in our sastra, as is the status of devas like Rudra and Brahma. I have already given a brief explanation of how different contradictions in the Veda can be smoothly resolved if we adopt the stance that Vishnu is the One Deity who is lauded supreme. Ganeshprasad and Avinash (no offense intended) ask me to repeat the same thing again and again. Quite frankly, there is a lot of sentiment attached here, and it is obvious that no-one is going to let go of it that easily. Believe what you must. At any rate, it is not my mission to convert Hindus who worship Shiva. I was only arguing with other Vaishnavas about how they view Shiva. In any case, I am done here.

I wish people would take time to see the pramanas I have been providing. Its tiresome to repeat everything for the benefit of irresponsible posters who just can't face facts. Are you aware of the Brahma Vidyas? Brahman within the Sun, within the Moon, etc? It is explicitly mentioned that the indweller is propitiated. Contradicts Shruti, namely, Shathapatha Brahmana which says Rudra is not cleansed of sins (refer to my earlier post), and this pramana: tasminhi pUjyamAne vai devadeve maheshvare sampUjito bhavetpArtha devo nArAyaNaH prabhuH It is the Lord, the prabhu, the Narayana *IN* Maheshvara (the worshippable, the lord of the devas), who is actually worshipped. ~ SANTI PARVA, MAHABHARATA. Do you need anything clearer than this? A child can understand this concept. Stop quoting Tamasic Puranas. Here, we refer to Shruti, which clearly mentions Vishnu is unborn and is an avatar of Narayana. 'Narayana vidmahe Vasudevaya Dimahe Tanno Visnoh Prachodayat'. Rudra and Brahma have been mentioned to have been born from Narayana. Furthermore, Lord Vishnu can always call Himself 'I am Brahma, I am Shiva', as they are part of His body. Hence, Vishnu is Narayana. He is simply mentioned within the context of His function here. Rig, Sama, Yajur, Atharva, the Samhitas, Aranyakas, Brahmanas, Upanishads and also the Sattvik Puranas, Gita, Ithihasas, Sahasranama and Vedanta Sutras. Need a list?

The intelligence of Ganeshprasad is staggering. He understands the exact purport of Sri Vyasa perfectly in one go, whereas so many scholars over times immemorial have struggled to grasp the concepts of Vedanta. How cool is that? I don't deny that prajapatis pray to Shiva. Srimad Ramayana says, 'The Devas pray to Shiva. Shiva prays to Brahma. Brahma prays to Vishnu.' Hence, it is a heirarchy. Since Ganeshprasad will accuse me here of 'twisted interpretations', I will explain it here: Now, Upanishads suggest Brahma Vidyas where Indra is meditated upon as the object of deliverance. But it is to be understood that the meditator focuses not on the Jiva named Indra, but on the indweller, who is Vishnu. Therfore, the Devas address Shiva as 'Bhuta Atman' meaning, All-Pervading'. This is nothing more than an addressal to Vishnu, who is the indweller of the Jiva named Shiva. Here are pramanas to substantiate this: - In Bhagavatam 8.12.4 (so kindly provided by cBrahma earlier on), Shiva prays to Vishnu and calls Him Lord of the Worlds. Hence, you cannot have two supreme Lords. From Vedic Sastra, it is abundantly clear that Rudra is a Jiva. - Lord Krishna emphasises that He cannot be attained except by a Guru. Hence, the Devas have Brahma and Shiva as their Gurus, and treat these two Mahadevas as those capable of providing liberation. - Sri Rudram Chamakam clearly says that Vishnu is the indweller of Rudra. Only Jivas have the Lord as indweller. If Rudra was an avatar of the Lord, why would he have Vishnu as his indweller? Hence, Rudra is a Jiva. - Srimad Bhagavatam verifies that Narayana is the absolute reality in various instances. - Brahma Sutras say that only One Being is responsible for Creation, Preservation and Destruction. That One Being is Sriman Narayana. Ganeshprasad needs to understand the difference between Vedic Texts and Non-Vedic ones like Ramacharitmanasa. There are very few Shaivite commentators on the Bhagavatam. Only Vaishnava acharyas have commentated on it. And all Vaishnava Acharyas agree that in this context, prayers to Shiva go to Vishnu. Even Srila Prabhupada has remained consistent with this. So, tell me, what makes you think you know the true meaning and can ignore about 10 purports in one go? One more pramana. This verse is part of the prayer of the Devas to Shiva: guṇa-mayyāsva-śaktyāsya sarga-sthity-apyayānvibho dhatseyadāsva-dṛg bhūman brahma-viṣṇu-śivābhidhām (8.7.23) It is given that One Being manifests as Vishnu, Shiva and Brahma for functional purposes. Unfortunately, this is where Srila Prabhupada lumps Vishnu with Brahma and Shiva and calls all three as 'guna avatars'. Here is proof. If Shiva is the one being prayed to by the Devas, then why is this verse being addressed to the One Being who manifests as Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva? Because, this prayer is directed to the indweller of Shiva, and not to Shiva. That is why Shiva's name is also mentioned in this verse. In reality, Vedas confirm that only Vishnu is the avatar of Sriman Narayana, with 100% attributes, who resides on the Ocean of Milk. The Vedas however, confirm that both Brahma and Rudra are jivas. Aniruddha and Sankarshana provide the powers of creation and destruction to them. Hence, this verse shouldn't be taken to mean all 3 are equal. Since Vishnu manifests His powers through Brahma and Shiva, He often refers to them as Himself. But Srimad Valmiki Ramayana clears up all doubts thusly: "tata: tvam-api durdharsha: tasmad-bhAvat sanAtanAt | rakshArtham sarva-bhUtAnAm vishNu tvam upajagmivAn || " -- SrI vAlmIki rAmAyaNam 2.101.26 Meaning: Brahma said to Vishnu,"At my request, You the insurmountable Supreme Self, incarnated as Vishnu amidst Siva & myself in order to protect all." Note, this verse says only Vishnu has incarnated amidst Brahma and Shiva, thus indicating that Vishnu alone is the Supreme Lord. Therfore, unless you take the explanation by Vaishnavas, you will have to say that bhagavatam contradicts Vedas. But take it from one who knows, Bhagavatam is the exact purport of Vedas. There is no contradiction at all. Why would the Lord only want to protect, and not create or destroy openly? Answer is simple: He is not interested in creation or destruction, and hence leaves it to jivas (after giving them powers). He loves protecting everyone more, so He manifests directly for it. When you say Vishnu is the 'protector', it means He protects all, including Brahma and Shiva. Convieniently ignoring the fact that the Puranas classify themselves as Sattvic, Rajasic and Tamasic. Whatever. EDIT: Here is Krishna telling Arjuna that He is the indweller of Rudra, ahamAtmA hi lokAnAM vishvAnAM pANDunandana tasmAdAtmAnamevAgre rudraM sampUjayAmyaham yadyahaM nArchayeyaM vai IshAnaM varadaM shivam AtmAnaM nArchayetkashchiditi me bhAvitaM manaH O Son of Pandu, I am, indeed, the Atma, the indweller of this universe and the worlds. Therefore, I worship myself first, even when I worship Rudra. If I did not worship Rudra, the bestower of boons, in such a way (i.e., worshipping the indwelling Lord first), some would not worship me, the indwelling Lord, at all - this is my opinion. An avatar of the Lord would not have the Lord as indweller, because He himself would be the Lord. Hence, Rudra is a Jiva who has Vishnu as the indweller. No use refuting this.

I am not going through it again. Without disrespect, let me tell you that other Vaishnava Sampradayas have quite a different view on things, as compared to Hare Krishnas.

No inconsistency. Interpretation is required. Then, you use your brains to see which acharya has made the best interpretation that resolves contradictions. Srila Prabhupada's commentary contradicts shruti. Hence, it cannot be accepted as it is. Typical. Misinformed hindus side with cBrahma, just like they did in the Jesus thread. And once again, I am stuck explaining this to them. 1) Ganeshprasad has been posting english translations. Whereas, I have posted the Sanskrit verses as well. If you have an alternate interpretation, then out with it. I can refute it. 2) The pramanas I give have been used by Vaishnavas many times to defeat Shaivites and Advaitins. 3) The Pramanas I gave are fairly straight forward and there is no way to interpret them otherwise. For example, 'Na Isana', means there was not even Shiva at the time. Straightforward. Similarly, 'Papa' means Sins. Hence, nothing ambiguous. Ganeshprasad gives a translation like 'Impersonal Brahman', which is not the right translation for 'Brahman'. This is questionable indeed. And even more hypocritical is the fact that, you completely ignore the purports for the translation you took. Even if I accept Srila Prabhupada's translation, he has also mentioned in the purport that all prayers to Shiva are indeed directed to Vishnu only. Yet, you choose to ignore that little detail. I think the main confusion with Hare Krishnas is that they are unaware of who Vishnu is, and the extent of His identity with Krishna. I will explain it later, like I said. Post pramanas and not opinions. Again, making the same mistake. You never learn, do you? In any case, if you want to worship Shiva, I am not stopping you.

In order to prove that a text is not sectarian, you need to show that it is consistent with Veda et al. So, prove that Brahma Samhita's philosophy exists in all other texts first. For instance, noone can take an Archie Comic Book and say, 'This is Veda'. You need to prove that the content of the book is consistent with all scriptures that are considered as universal by all Sampradayas. Brahma Samhita contradicts Veda. But yes, prove that it doesn't contradict Veda, then I will accept it. However, no disrespect - the Brahma Samhita is a masterpiece if you consider it as a devotional work and not as scriptural pramana. Are you completely blind? All along I have been providing pramanas. 1) Bhootanam ca Prajapatis samvatsaraya dikshitah | Bhootanam pathir gruhapathir aaseet | Usha Patni | …………….. bhootanam pathis samvatsara ushasi rodho(a)sinchat | Samvatsare kumaro jayatha | sorodheeth | tam prajapathirabraveet | kumara kim rodhishi | yachhramath tapasodhi jathoseethi | so(a)braveet anapahatapapma vaa ahamanahithanama | nama me dehi paapno(a)pahatya iti | tam punah prajapathi braveet | rudro(a)seethi | ……….. rudrobhavachcharva isanah pathir bhima ugra iti sapta namani |" "The pati of bhoota and praja, Brahma deva, underwent diksha for one year. He was a Grihasta. His wife was Usha. …….. Brahma deva let his veerya ( ‘rodho(a)sinchat’) to Usha. In a year, a son was born. The son cried. Brahma asked him, “ Son! Why are you crying. I got you as child after tough tapasya. The son said, “ I am not cleansed of sins. To wipe out my sins give me names. Brahma again told him, “ Let your name be Rudra.” …….. Rudra, Bhava, charva, Isana, Pathi(pasupathi), Bhima, Ugra – these seven names (were given by Brahma deva)" ~ Shathapatha Brahmana. Rudra is mentioned as sinful here. Tell me, how can an 'avatar' be sinful? And it is also clear that Brahma gave this Jiva names. No avatar can have sins. This clearly negates the view that Rudra is an avatar. This Rudra, named 'Isana', is same as the Shiva we know. That is verified by another Pramana, which I shall provide below. 2) 'eko ha vai nArAyAna Aseeth na brahmaha na ISAnaha neme dyava pruthivi na nakshatrAni na sUryaha.' Narayana existed, manifestly alone, the only purusha, and neither Brahma nor Siva, nor the sky, nor the earth, nor the stars, and nor the sun were existent. ~ Mahanarayana Upanishad. 'Isana' here is Rudra. So, it shows that Rudra was absent during Pralaya. Now, Pralaya only happens in the material world, when Vishnu initiates it. Vaikuntha is beyond the realms and is unaffected by pralaya. Only Jivas are absent during Pralaya, because during that time, they reside in the stomach of the Lord. Hence, Rudra is a Jiva. You can argue, 'Maybe Lord Vishnu makes His avatars disappear during pralaya'. This is negated by the fact that Rudra is mentioned along with Brahma, Sun, Stars, etc. There is no mention of any avatar here. Now, also note that 'Isana' specifically is mentioned here. Because in reality, there are 11 Rudras, of which Shiva is the greatest. And in my previous pramana from Shathapatha Brahmana, 'Isana' was given by Brahma as a name to Rudra. So, 'Isana' indicates the leader of the Rudras, ie, Shiva. So, Pramana #1 says Rudra has sins. Pramana # 2 says Rudra is absent during Pralaya. During Pralaya, the Jivas enter a subtle state. Then, they take birth again in different forms. So, if Rudra is susceptible to Pralaya, it means that Rudra is within the material realms, leading to the conclusion that the post of 'Rudra' is temporary, as this Jiva is also under bondage and hence subject to transmigration. Hence, Rudra is a Jiva. Put two and two together. 2) "mahA-deva: sarva-medhe mahAtmA hutvA AtmAnam deva-deva: babhUva " -- Mahabharata, SAnti-parvam 20.12 Meaning: Having performed sarva-medha-yagam, Mahadeva (ie Siva) then achieved greatness amongst devas. Clearly shows that Shiva had to do some Yagya to achieve his status. This means that any jiva, including myself and cBrahma can become Rudra by performing some penances. 3) ata purushohavai nArAyanO kAmayata| prajA Srujeyeti| nArAyAnA prAnO jAyAte| mana: sarvendriyAni ca yAyur jyotirApa: pritivI viswasyadArini| nArAyAnAt brahmA jAyAte| nArAyAnAt rudro jAyate| nArAyanAt prajApati: prajAyate| nArAyAnAt dvAdasAdityA rudrA vasava: sarvAni cchamdAmsi nArAyAnAt deva samutpatyante| nArAyAnAt pravartante| nArAyanAt praLeyante| etat rigvedasiroyodite| ~ Mahanarayana Upanishad. Here, Rudra is mentioned as part of Narayana's creation (atma, though, is eternal, of course). If Rudra was an avatar, he wouldn't be mentioned here. 4) Another pramana is seen in our ithihasas and Puranas. In Vishnu Purana, it is clearly mentioned that Rudra fought against Krishna in the Banasura episode, upon which Krishna chastised him. There are also instances when Rudra considered himself to be supreme and rebelled against Vishnu. These acts are due to the fact that Rudra is a Jiva. No Jiva is exempt from faults. Like they say, 'nobody is perfect'...except Vishnu. 5) Summary: Rudra has some faults. For example, he is not absolutely unborn like Vishnu is. The Shatapatha Brahmana (6.3.1.8-19.) refers to his crying after being born of prajapati. (Btw, the being who is loka-prasiddha as rudra is also known as Ugra and Ishana according to the same text). Here, the 'kumara' himself claims that he is not sinless. Birth of Rudra is predicated in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad too. The Rigveda also has a lady speaker (ambhrani, which is another name for Lakshmi) say that she makes, whomsoever she wishes to make, as Rudra or Brahma etc. So, Rudra is not absolutely powerful. Also note the fact that Lakshmi says that She can make ANYONE, whomsover She wishes, as Rudra. This shows that Rudra is nothing more than a post. Then, there is another Rigvedic text, which says that Rudra doesn't fully understand the actions of 'savitr' (na yasyendro varuNo na mitro vratamaryamA na minanti rudraH). So, he is not absolutely a jnani. Finally another sukta (vayA viSNoreSasya prabhRthe havirbhiH | vide hi rudro rudriyaM) tells us that rudra gets his 'rudratva' from his prayers to Vishnu. All this, coupled with specific references to his absence in pralaya and his sins, makes Rudra a jiva. Maybe an exalted Jiva, but a jiva nonetheless. Hence, to say he is '86% Krishna' is nonsense. Uh, have you ever read the theology of the Sri or Madhva sampradaya? Neither of them accept this Vishnu is a 90% 'guna avatar' of Krishna concept. Please, get your nose out of Srila Prabhupada's books and do some studying. No problem. Provide me with pramanas from any of the 4 Vedas, 2 Ithihasas, Gita, Sahasranama, or Puranas (Vishnu and Bhagavata Purana) that validates any concept in Brahma Samhita. Then I will accept it. I am aware that Hare Krishnas are confused regarding this concept. That is the reason why they keep denigrating Vishnu and equating Him with Rudra and Brahma, who are Jivas. I will explain it later. And yes, there is no such thing as a guna avatara. Unless you consider the Vyuhas as possessing selective attributes.

I see. So, it is a sectarian dispute? Why not use general books instead of Brahma Samhita and see if your theories hold water? I gave you sufficient pramanas. Veda says Narayana is Supreme, and there is no-one above Him. Bhagavata also sees Narayana and Vasudeva as one and the same. I have given you pramanas from Vedas, Upanishads, Ithihasas and Puranas showing Vishnu to be non-different from Krishna. Rudra is clearly mentioned to be 'Sinful'. TELL ME, HOW CAN AN AVATAR OF NARAYANA HAVE SINS? However, a point is to be mentioned. I am not exactly clear as to whether Rudra came from the forehead of Narayana or from Brahma. Yes, it has been explained, but only by true vedantins, and I am unaware of the explanation. But the point is, Rudra is mentioned to be sinful, and to be absent during pralaya by a text that is accepted by ALL. Thus, Rudra is a Jiva. 'Chatur Vyuhash' pertains to the 4 Vyuhas. Sankarshana is a Vyuha. Deva Deva means Lord of Devas. Can you please tell me where does this indicate that Vishnu is an avatar and not Supreme? Srila Prabhupada mentions 'Guna Avatar'. Tell me, where is Guna avatar indicated in Bhagavatam sanskrit verses? GIVE ME A PRAMANA THAT SAYS VISHNU IS A 'SATTVA GUNA AVATAR'. Again, dimbulb, you are the one saying Vishnu is inferior to Krishna. Understand that Vishnu IS Krishna with ALL attributes. Whether with 4 hands or 2 hands, Krishna is Narayana, Rama is Narayana, Vishnu is Narayana, Narasimha is Narayana. Period. The idea that there can be a 'tamo guna avatar' or a 'rajo guna avatar' is nonsensical. How can the Lord, who is devoid of Rajas and Tamas, manifest as Rajo and Tamo guna avatars? Shiva and Brahma have rajo and tamo gunas because they are jivas. You can accept the Samhita, AFTER you prove that your philosophy exists in every Veda, Ithihasa and Purana. Advaitins have a text called 'Ashtavakra Gita' where Advaita is the philosophy espoused. But they do not use it in debates. Sri Vaishnavas have the Prabandha, but we do not use it in debates. Similarly, Brahma Samhita is sectarian. When in a debate, use authentic texts like the Vedas, Upanishads, Ithihasas and Sattvik Puranas. 1) The idea that Vishnu is an 'expansion' of Krishna is in Brahma Samhita. 2) The idea that Shiva is an avatar is in Brahma Samhita. Therfore, prove it without a sectarian text.

Hoo boy. He never gives up. 1) I speak for Sri Vaishnavism. Each Vaishnava sect has its own theology. Use your brains to find out which one is closest to Vedic truths, as there is always squabbling. 2) Brahma Samhita is not considered authentic by any Vaishnava Sampradaya except the Gaudiya Vaishnavas. The Gaudiyas believe that it was 'recovered' by Sri Chaitanya. The other Sampradayas (Sri, Madhva, Nimbarka, etc.) regard it as a 15th century invention by a Gaudiya Vaishnava. This is because the Brahma Samhita is not consistent with the rest of the Vedas, and contradicts the original vedic texts heavily. However, it is a good devotional work. When you want to indulge in debate, use pramanas from sources accepted by EVERYONE. Which means - 4 Vedas, Upanishads, Puranas (Vishnu and Bhagavata preferably) and Ithihasas. 3) Again, stop posting purports from Srila Prabhupada. Understand that 'pramana' means any quote from an authoritative text, and not just a translation by an acharya. 4) STOP POSTING TRANSLATIONS ALONE. IT IS NOT PRAMANA. But let us analyse the Bhagavatam verse 8.12.4 śrī-mahādevauvāca deva-deva jagad-vyāpiñ jagad-īśa jagan-maya sarveṣāmapibhāvānāḿ tvamātmā hetur īśvaraḥ mahādevaḥuvāca — Lord Śiva (Mahādeva) said; deva-deva — O best demigod among the demigods; jagat-vyāpin — O all-pervading Lord; jagat-īśa — O master of the universe; jagat-maya — O my Lord, who are transformed by Your energy into this creation; sarveṣāmapi — all kinds of; bhāvānām — situations; tvam — You; ātmā — the moving force; hetuḥ — because of this; īśvaraḥ — the Supreme Lord, Parameśvara. Srila Prabhupada makes a few mistakes here. Number 1, Deva Deva does not mean 'Best demigod among demigods'. It means, 'Lord of Devas', or 'Supreme Deity'. Hence, Vishnu is not being addressed as 'Demigod leader', but as 'Supreme Lord' here. Number 2, nowhere in this verse is 'Guna Avatar' mentioned. Yet, Srila Prabhupada mentions it in his translation. So conclusion - The above verse shows Mahadeva calling Vishnu as 'Supreme Lord'. Hence, Vishnu is not an avatar. And yes, there are certainly stories that Rudra came from Brahma's or Narayana's forehead. This is reconciled as below: In the Vedas, it says Narayana meditated, and Rudra emerged from His forehead. This is explained as follows. - First, Brahma begets a Son. He is named Rudra. - Next, Vedas say that Rudra got his strength by meditating on Vishnu. So, it means that Rudra, the new-born, begins tapas. - Lord Narayana, pleased with tapas of the jiva named Rudra, meditates and this results in an avatar of Vishnu named Sankarshana - Rudra (Destroyer) emerging from His forehead. - Sankarshana confers the destructive powers to Rudra. So, understand, Rudra is the Jiva. Sankarshana is the avatar. But the Veda calls both the jiva and the avatar as 'Rudra', because they are both connected. Pramana for this - Refer Sri Vishnu Sahasranama. 'ChaturVyoohash' is interpreted as the 4 Vyuha Avatars (functional avatars of Vishnu), ie, Vyuha Vasudeva, Aniruddha, Pradyumna and Sankarshana. Another pramana is the fact that the sons of Lord Krishna were named Aniruddha, Pradyumna, etc. as they were amsas of the Vyuhas. Furthermore, Aniruddha and Pradyumna are also names given in Vishnu Sahasranama. Yet another Pramana is that, in Sri Rudram Chamakam, it is mentioned that all prayers to Rudra go only to Vishnu. Aniruddha induces Brahma to create. Pradyumna is the Preserver. Sankarshana induces Rudra to destroy. The Vyuhas are all functional avatars of Vishnu. Even Adi Sankara accepts this. Since Shathapatha Brahmana says Rudra is a Jiva, it follows that the Rudra emerging from Sriman Narayana's forehead is the avatar Sankarshana who confers special powers to Rudra. This way, any contradictions in Veda is reconciled. Another important point - there are 11 Rudras. Shiva is the Rudra who is also named Isana. So, it is quite possible that births of these Rudras may vary. But the Rudra of the Shathapatha Brahmana is Isana, who is none other than Mahadeva. 5) Again, Brahma Samhita is a sectarian text. No use quoting it.

Here are enough pramanas to prove the Vaishnava point of view: "tata: tvam-api durdharsha: tasmad-bhAvat sanAtanAt | rakshArtham sarva-bhUtAnAm vishNu tvam upajagmivAn || " -- SrI vAlmIki rAmAyaNam 2.101.26 Meaning: Brahma said to Vishnu,"At my request, You the insurmountable Supreme Self, incarnated as Vishnu amidst Siva & myself in order to protect all." Mahabharata, as well as Shathapatha Brahmana, talk about Brahma and Rudra as being positions to a bondaged jivatma is elevated upon performance of special Yaghas. "yuga-kOTi-sahasrANi vishNum-ArAdhya padma-bhU: | punas-trailOkya-dhAtRtvam prAptavAn-iti SuSRuma || " -- mahA bhAratham, kuNTataropAkyAnam Meaning: Worshipping Lord Vishnu one thousand million yugas, catur-mukha-brahma attained the ability to create the three Worlds. "mahA-deva: sarva-medhe mahAtmA hutvA AtmAnam deva-deva: babhUva " -- bhAratham, SAnti-parvam 20.12 Meaning: Having performed sarva-medha-yagam, Mahadeva (ie Siva) then achieved greatness amongst devas. "sa-brahmakA: sa-rudrA: ca sendrA devA maha-rshaya: | arcayanti sura-SreshTham devam nArAyaNam harim" || -- bhAratham, Santi-parvam 350.30 Meaning: Brahma, Siva, Indra, Devas & Rishis worship Narayana, the highest amongst them. Here are some pramanas to show Narayana is different from the Devas (ie, superior): ata purushohavai nArAyanO kAmayata| prajA Srujeyeti| nArAyAnA prAnO jAyAte| mana: sarvendriyAni ca yAyur jyotirApa: pritivI viswasyadArini| nArAyAnAt brahmA jAyAte| nArAyAnAt rudro jAyate| nArAyanAt prajApati: prajAyate| nArAyAnAt dvAdasAdityA rudrA vasava: sarvAni cchamdAmsi nArAyAnAt deva samutpatyante| nArAyAnAt pravartante| nArAyanAt praLeyante| etat rigvedasiroyodite| ~ Mahanarayana Upanishad. Here, the origin of every devata is mentioned. So, understand that Shiva is a jivatma who attained the ability to destroy, only by Vishnu's grace. He terminates along with Brahma at the time of pralaya.

One more post for Ganeshprasad's benefit: 1) My 'prominent manifestations' simply means that all the glorious things in the world were described by Krishna. Within the material world, Devas like Rudra are powerful. Therefore, they represent Krishna. This means, that the glory of Rudra or Brahma is simply provided by Krishna. It is not their own glory. Understand? Ganeshprasad is also a manifestation. But since he has no glory, obviously the Lord didn't mention him!! Krishna also says, 'I am the rod of chastisement'. Hence, it s clear that He was simply quoting generally. 2) In the Universal Form, what Arjuna sees are the various devas, asuras, rishis, etc. forming the body of Krishna. A little philosophy. Upanishads say that everything is the body of Brahman. Which means, everything, including us, are the body of Brahman. Now, you have Ganeshprasad. Obviously, I know that Ganeshprasad's soul is distinct from the body. Yet, I don't call him, 'Ganeshprasad's soul'. When I say 'Ganeshprasad', it appears as though I am addressing the insentient body, but it is in reality the sentient atma who is awake enough to hear it. Similarly, when the Veda says, 'Brahma is supreme', it does not denote the body, but the indweller. And it is mentioned that everything is a body of Brahman. So, Brahma, being the body of Brahman, is not being addressed here. Rather, the indwelling Lord is being addressed. Now, you agree that the body is inferior to the soul. Similarly, the devas, rishis, asuras, ourselves, the Universe and insentient matter which forms the body of the Lord is inferior to the Lord. Yes. They do. Even Christians and Muslims are only worshipping Him. But He clearly says, 'One who worships Me alone is more intelligent'. And that, 'Men of small intelligence worship devas'. Are you so stubborn? Srimad Bhagavatam is a sattvik Purana, meaning, it glorifies Vishnu as Supreme. There is no Deva worship. Srila Prabhupada's commentary is soaked in bhakti, but it contradicts shruti in many places. There is no such thing as 'Impersonal Brahman'. Upanishads say Brahman is Personal. Read the commentaries of Veeraraghavachariar or Madhvacharya. None of them see any deva worship in the 8th canto, or an impersonal Brahman. That is why people say the Veda has three meanings, 1) Internal, 2) External, 3) Spiritual. Ignorance blinds a person.

I will make some points absolutely clear: 1) Ganeshprasad talks of Ishta devta worship without providing any pramanas. He is quoting the secularists' popular injunction, 'Truth is One, but it has many names'. I am seriously tired of these people quoting this sentence without understanding the context. Yes, Vishnu has many names, so what? Ganeshprasad should provide pramanas to prove his theory that all devas are equal. He hasn't. Furthermore, anyadevata worship is denounced by every Vedantin who has commentated on the Prasthna Trayam. 2) cBrahma is another one. He keeps quoting Srila Prabhupada, just like Ganeshprasad quotes english translations of Bhagavatam without authenticity. Now, Srila Prabhupada was a great acharya with bhakti to Krishna, but He is NOT right on all counts. Nonsense. This is a contradiction of Shruti and Smriti. How can a Jiva possess 78% attributes? And indeed, who has measured the Lord's attributes? The Lord Himself says His attributes are immeasurable. First of all, the Supreme Lord cannot be restricted to just 64 attributes alone. Secondly, there is no pramana in Upanishads, Vedas, Ithihasas and Puranas that says Vishnu is 86% Krishna and Shiva is 75% Krishna. I give you pramana from Mahabharata, which says, 'Shiva became Mahadeva after performing a Mahayagya'. Thus, the idea that Shiva is closer to god status is WRONG. Shiva himself is a Jiva who performed some sacrifices to elevate himself to this position. No deva like Shiva or Brahma can even have 1% of Krishna's attributes. And Vishnu is none other than Krishna. And exactly how do you arrive at the 85% figure so accurately? VISHNU IS KRISHNA. Why do these Hare Krshnas think that Narayana refers to the four handed form and Krishna to two handed form? The two handed form is also Narayana. The four handed form is also Krishna. cBrahma is calling Vishnu a demigod, and Krishna is given an identity that sets Him apart from Vishnu. This is against Sastra and Vaishnavism. cBrahma will say, 'So and So person is self realised, so no need to resort to scripture, just rely on translation. This argument is not valid. Advaitins will say, 'Advaita is correct because Sri Sankara said so'. Similarly, one CANNOT say 'This is right because Srila Prabhupada said so'. I repeat, Narayana is Brahman as per Shruti and Smriti. There is no difference between Krishna and Vishnu. The difference between Shiva and Vishnu is like the difference between a normal Jiva and Vishnu. Krishna came to mingle with the cowherds. Does that make Him a simple cowherd? No. Similarly, Vishnu mingles with the devas. 3) Guliaditya: There are many pramanas proving that Shiva, Brahma and the Devas are jvas. And as far as the 'Shiva is a great Vaishnava' goes, please read my earlier post on this: <TABLE class=tborder id=post1093376 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" align=center border=0><TBODY><TR vAlign=top><TD class=alt1 id=td_post_1093376 style="BORDER-TOP: #cfcfcf 1px solid; BORDER-BOTTOM: #cfcfcf 1px solid">Now, Bhagavatam says, 'Shiva is a Vaishnava'. But we cannot worship Shiva because we do not know whether this verse pertains to this Yuga's Shiva, or to a Shiva of another Yuga. Yes, there have been many Rudras in previous Yugas who were great Bhagavatas, and had attained moksha. But the reason why I suspect that this verse does not pertain to the current Rudra is simply because he has not done much to become the greatest Vaishnava. Apart from composing a few stotras in praise of the Lord, Shiva has sometimes rebelled against Vishnu (as in Banasura episode) and has also considered himself as Supreme at times. Therfore, it isn't necessary to worship this Rudra. He may be Vaishnava, but he is not a Bhagavata. <!-- / message --></TD></TR><TR><TD class=alt1 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #cfcfcf 1px solid; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #efefef"> <!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: postbit_onlinestatus --> <!-- END TEMPLATE: postbit_onlinestatus --> <!-- [sTART HACK='vB Pager' AUTHOR='UAEWEB.COM' VERSION='3.0.3' CHANGEID= 7 ] --><!-- [END HACK='vB Pager' AUTHOR='UAEWEB.COM' VERSION='3.0.3' CHANGEID= 7 ] --> </TD><TD class=alt1 align=right><!-- controls --></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Are you aware that this name thing is accepted by even Adi Sankara? He translates 'Maheswara' as Narayana in some Upanishad commentary. Clearly, he takes 'Maheswara' as meaning, 'Lord of the Worlds' (which is Vishnu) and not as the name of Mahadeva Rudra. Ignorance. Sri Rudram is chanted by Sri Vaishnavas. Rudra as a name of Vishnu occurs in the Sahasranama. Ganeshprasad, first learn Panini's grammar and then talk. If you apply all names of Vishnu to Rudra, it leads to two contradictions: 1) Creation account of Rudra cannot be explained, 2) Narayana is a proper noun that can only be applied to Vishnu. And Narayana is explicitly mentioned as Brahman. So, with shaivite philosophy, we will have two Brahmans, Narayana and Rudra. Which is illogical. Exactly what are you blabbering about? Yes, Rudra appeared from the mind of Brahma. But that is only the body of Rudra. The jiva assigned to this body then entered it. Narayana then meditated, and from his forehead came Sankarshana, the avatar of Vishnu who confers destructive powers to the jivatma named Rudra. You know nothing about sastra. To compare avatars of the Lord with devas is not even proper. And it is illogical to say Vishnu is supreme, Brahma is supreme, Shiva is supreme, when Shruti clearly posits that Rudra as a baby cried and asked Brahma to remove his sins...an indication of his jiva status. He has completely evaded the point. Again, no pramanas. Srimad Bhagavatam talks about Brahma getting jealous and kidnapping all the children, upon which Krishna rescues them. Jealousy is a trait of a Jiva. Clearly, Brahma is not faultless or perfect like Vishnu. Shiva means 'Auspiciousness'. So, in Veda, Shiva is Brahman simply means 'Brahman is Auspicious'. That's all. I give you pramana from Srimad Ramayana: 'The Devas pray to Shiva for liberation. Shiva prays to Brahma. Brahma prays to me. I need no protection, for I am the refuge of all'. It is a heirarchy. Krishna has always emphasised the value of Guru. To devas, Rudra acts as a guru. To Rudra, Brahma acts as a guru. Brahma then prays to Vasudeva, who has noone above Him. Useless quoting english translations. Of course, a Shaivite or an Advaitin will make his biased interpretations. What's the point of quoting verses in english? <!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->Stop quoting verses from your biased commentators. I repeat, Srimad Bhagavatam is a sattvik Purana, and Vaishnava Acharyas have commentated on it perfectly. And they have destroyed the arguments of every shaivite and advaitin who came up with Shiva's supremacy. The shark is not Matsya. Nowhere is Matsya mentioned as a Shark. Please provide me with pramanas for this. In any case, even if we assume that Matsya is a Shark, there is absolutely no indication that Krishna was specifying the Matsya avatara in that verse. AND even if we assume that He was specifying the Matsya Avatara, it is already mentioned that the Lord's avatars are part of His glories. independent pramanas exist to prove Matsya, Rama and Vamana are avatars. But there are no pramanas to show that Indra and Rudra are equal to Vishnu. Thus, it can be inferred that Krishna was only talking generally. Yes. So what? The Universe is a manifestation of Krishna. The insentient matter is also His creation. Similarly, the devas are manifestations. Now, Shiva has auspiciousness. So Krishna can say, 'I am Shiva'. But since Shiva lacks the other attributes that Krishna has, Shiva cannot say 'I am Krishna'. Krishna also says, 'I am the Self in all Beings'. Does this mean Ganeshprasad is a manifestation of Krishna? No. According to Vishishtadvaita, Self is the body of Brahman. Hence, Krishna is only referring to general unity. And if you are an advaitin, trust me, we have enough pramanas to defeat advaita. Oh boy. I told you, each deva has ONE attribute of Brahman (Vishnu). But they do not have ALL His attributes. And even that one attribute they get only by His grace. Now, Vishnu has intelligence, auspiciousness and wealth. Brahma has intelligence only. Shiva has auspiciousness only. Indra has wealth only. So, neither Brahma, Shiva or Indra ar equal to Vishnu, because they each have oly one of His three attributes. So, the Veda, while meditating on Vishnu's attributes of Intelligence, auspiciousness and wealth, simply refers to these attributes by names of devas, ie, Narayana is Brahma, Shiva, Indra, meaning, Narayana is intelligent, auspicious, and wealthy. Here are Pramanas: Pramana 1 - Vedas say that 'Of Devas, Vishnu is highest and Agni is lowest'. So, if you consider all devas as equal, it contradicts this verse. My explanation is consistent with both your quote and my pramana. Pramana 2- Upanishads refer to various brahma vidyas in which one is supposed to meditate on the Lord as the indweller of Indra's body. So, th Upanishads explicitly say that Vishnu is the one to whom the meditation is directed, and not Indra, as Vishnu is in Indra as his indweller. Learn Veda before you post misleading interpretations.

Like it? He goes mad over it. An example is given - Whenever the Gopis churned butter, Sri Krishna would eagerly come and help as well. While doing so, He would take great pleasure in touching the Gopis' hands, or making contact with her body. Now, an interesting case of opposite behaviour is that, during the churning of the Ocean of Milk, Lord Vishnu told the devas to stay away from Him, so that He could churn the ocean alone. So, why did He tell the devas to keep away, but was so eager in Krishna avatara to help the gopis? Its because the gopis are bhagavatas who were totally immersed in the Lord. And the Lord always wants to be close to those devotees. But the Devas like Indra, despite being Vaishnavas, are not great devotees. So, He basically doesn't care about being close to them!! I appreciate Srila Prabhupada's work, he was a great acharya. He certainly had some divinity about him to acheive this task. Perfect mix of leadership and devotion.

*Sigh* Copy & Paste in two threads, eh? I replied to this in the 'Shiva is a Demi-god' thread. Check it if you wish.

Very Good. [uOTE Rudra simply means 'One who destroys evil'. It does not denote the Mahadeva here. So, this means Rudra is another name of Vishnu. So stop bringing these old arguments here. The Rudra who was born to Brahma has clearly been mentioned to be a Jiva in Shathapatha Brahmana. Hence, any quotations that Rudra is Supreme simply means, 'The one who destroys evil is supreme'. We take 'Rudra' as a common noun. And Vishnu certainly can destroy evil. Supremacy of Vishnu is established by the fact that: 1) There is a creation account of Rudra, which says that Rudra is a Jiva. No creation account for Vishnu. 2) Purusha Suktam mentions that the wives of the Purusha are Sri and Hri. This is an allusion to Lakshmi and Bhu Devi, the consorts of Vishnu. 3) 'Of Devas, Agni is lowest and Vishnu is highest', 'Om Tad Vishnoh Parama Padam', etc. prove Vishnu is supreme. 4) Narayana is proclaimd by the Vedas as the Brahman, and who existed even before Shiva and Brahma. 5) 'Narayana' is a proper noun and is inseparably linked with 'Vishnu', according to Panini's grammatical treatise. Brahma is a Jiva. He may be wiser than us, but he is not faultless. The Puranas categorise themselves as Sattva, Rajas and Tamas. Brahma, in his sattvik periods, tells the truth and extolls Vishnu. In his rajasic and tamasic moods, he gives misleading Puranas. Nice logic. But consider this - Ganeshprasad is a very kind person. But he is also dumb. So, similarly, Rudra is very auspicious and he also has some faults - namely, anger and cruelty. Rudra's auspiciousness is obtained from Vishnu. But Vishnu, being Brahman, has auspiciousness, intelligence, aiswarya and many qualities that Rudra doesn't have. And Vishnu is also Nirguna, ie, no bad qualities. Rudra has auspiciousness, but he doesn't have Brahma's intelligence. Brahma has intelligence, but he lacks the aiswarya of Indra. Only Vishnu, who is Brahman, possesses all traits like auspiciousness, aiswarya, intelligence, etc. Srimad Bhagavatam has been commentated on by so many Vaishnava acharyas, and none of them saw the text as depicting Rudra as supreme. So shut it. Interesting. Krishna also says, 'Among fishes, I am the Shark'. So, is the Shark a worshippable God now? Understand that in this context, Krishna was simply saying that whatever glory exists in this world, it is merely due to Him. Among Rudras, Sankara is most powerful. So Sankara represents Krishna. Among Yakshas, Kubera is best, so Kubera is Krishna. Among Fishes, Shark is most powerful. So Shark is Krishna. Now, you may argue that He also says this, 'Among Warriors, I am Rama' and 'Among Adityas, I am Vishnu'. A few things need to be clarified here: 1) Rama is an avatar of Vishnu, and this has been substantiated by other texts. When the Lord takes an avatara, He enters His own creation and becomes part of His own glory. So, Krishna includes Rama here as well. 2) 'Among Adityas, I am Vishnu', again refers to an avatar of Vishnu named Vamana, who was Upendra (younger brother of Indra) and hence an Aditya. It doesn't refer to Lord Vishnu on the causal ocean. So, according to your logic, all Devas are gods? So, we have 'gods' like Indra, who is full of traits like lust, greed and ego. Shiva and Brahma are more mature and wiser compared to devas like Indra, but they are Jivas as well.

You notice, that most people are sentimental about this. Often, they find this idea offensive, but it is an indisputable fact, as far as scripture is concerned. Shiva is a Jiva. Kali is a Jiva. Everyone except Narayana is a Jiva. Pramana - Read Shathapatha Brahmana. When Rudra was born, he cried to Brahma, asking him to remove his (Rudra's) sins. Only a jiva has sins. Another Pramana - It is clearly stated everywhere in scripture that the life of Brahma is some 155 trillion human years. After this, the current Brahma dies. So, it is clear that Brahma is simply a post occupied by a Jiva which also transmigrates. If Brahma is accepted to be a Jiva, then why is Shiva not Jiva? Lord Krishna clearly states in the Gita that every loka except Vaikuntha is in the material world. It clearly shows that each post of a deva (including Shiva) is simply occupied by a Jiva for a particular time period. Which means, if you or me do some penance, we can become Shiva or Brahma in the next yuga as well. Even Adi Sesha, Garuda and Lakshmi are Jivas. But they, being in Vaikuntha, are eternal and retain their identity forever. All other Devas from Brahma and Shiva onwards are still in samsara, that is irrefutable. There is no pramana to show that Shiva is anything other than a Jiva.

That's correct. One must understand that when the Veda Purusha praises a Deva like Indra or Agni, there are two reasons, 1) The Veda is recognising the indweller within the Deity, who is Vishnu (Brahman), 2) Each deity does possess one attribute of the Lord. For instance, Rudra possesses auspiciousness. Brahma has intelligence, etc. So, the Veda goes into ecstasy over a particular guna of Brahman at times, and indicates that guna by giving the name of the deity endowed by the Lord with that guna. In the Vedas, obeisances to different deities are performed, but it is clear that these prayers are always directed to the antaryami (indweller) within the deity. All the deities like Indra, Agni, Rudra, etc., although being praised by Vedas as Supreme, are also pointed out as having defects. For instance, Shathapatha Brahmana shows how Rudra was born, and asked Brahma to remove his sins. Then, in another Upanishad (I believe Kena), Indra, Agni and Vayu are shown to be boasting about their accomplishments, upon which Uma chastises them. And everyone knows that no supreme deity will ever have ahankara like this, boasting and stuff. This way, by a process of elimination, every deity's position is affirmed. It only leaves Vishnu, and statements like 'Om tad Visnoh Paramam Padam', as well as 'Narayana vidmahe Vasudevaya dimahe tanno Vishnu Prachodayat'....prove that Vishnu alone is Supreme. For instance, a mantra invoking Agni with the word 'Namaha' signifies that the Veda is surrendering to Lord Vishnu, as the antaryami of Agni. This is substantiated by various pramanas in texts like the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, where it is explicitly pointed out that Brahman is the indweller of all, and the sareeri/sareera concept is expounded. <TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 3ex; BORDER-TOP: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 3ex; BORDER-LEFT: #666666 1px solid; BORDER-BOTTOM: #666666 1px solid" bgColor=#e0e0e0>Though, at the moment I don't really belong to any specific sect, my views regarding the hiearchy of deities, is similar to the view Smartha's have. Therefore, I tend to reject Vaishnava texts like Bhagavatam, Vishnu Purana or Manu Smriti which hold Vaishnava views in regards to diety hierarchy (that Vishnu is supreme, and all other deities are demi-gods). </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE> Considering that Sri Adi Sankaracharya himself used only Vishnu Purana, indicated that only Narayana was the Saguna Brahman (as per his commentaries on Prasthna Trayam) and also condemned Pasupata and Shakta as unvedic, I think your smarta lineage needs to check its roots properly.

Coming from a guy who believes that Jesus is wandering from Goloka to Brahma Loka teaching 'Krsna Consciousness', its pretty pathetic.