Yogkriya

Its not a matter or "learning" to read Rag! Its a matter of acceptance!

Yes so true Yogesh. I used to go to retreats with my Guru to forests in the mountains, temples at night (all night meditations on the deity closing ourselves inside the altar room), but not anymore. My room is my cave for meditation that I can lock and get some mercy. I will ask for some mercy for you too. Follow SP if he is your Guru or inspiration. Don't lose faith in Yogeshwar Shri Krishna. Where there is love, devotion and affection, desire for intectual warfare is lost! And that is the only reason why Bhakti and devotional love has been considered as high. Lord Shiva says in Shiv Samhita to Parvati that Yoga is the highest of all forms of sadhna, BUT it should be given to a Bhakta only and this shows the importance of bhakti and devotion. Even if a Yogi attains supernatural powers, he needs bhakti to keep them controlled and devoted. I wish you all the best in your loving devotional service and sadhna! Om Namah Shivaya!!

Just like Vishvambar Mishra's being avatara of Krishna? Vashishtha Rishi - the great kul Guru of Rama worships Sadashiva devata.

But you said - Srutis are fallible.

Not really. I don't recognize this as the highest authority.

Raghu, So one Shatapatha Brahmana verse replaces everything else in the Vedic spiritual culture as well as at least 50 thousand years of Vedic history??? I understand your eagerness to 'prove' Lord Shiva a mere Demi-God. And address him as some sort of a "being". BUT, you neverthless failed to explain the real life examples of the high souled Shiva devotees down the ages that I mentioned in previous mails. You simply brushed off the whole Mahabharata as a mere concocted nonsense!! This is not accepted! Not accepted anywhere! My question is still valid, why would Rama, Krishna worship Lord Shiva with so much devotion? If one had to follow you, then we will have to throw away some of the Vedic scriptures. Since Srutis contradict each other and are fallible, then modern day books written by people like Prabhupada should have no meaning at all? How can they ever be authentic? What about chaitanya charitamrita? what is it based on? It is neither Veda, nor Upanishad, nor anything! What now? Why do you follow that then? Where is the logic here? You seem to impound some through vociferating against shrutis and Puranas. If you don't accept puranas, then stop reading SB. If you do, then include Shiva Mahapurana too. The same Brahma was punished by Shiva and accept for Pushkar Raj in Rajasthan he is worshipped nowhere! Are you aware of this? The origin of Shiva is not known to Vishnu and Brahma (according to Shiva Mahapurana), since he is without a beginning or an end. he is Swayambhu. How do you explain the greatest of the Rishis like Upmanyu, Vashishtha, Vishwamitra, Kanad, Pulatsya, Atri, Bognath, Agstya......???? If we had to follow your explaination, then all of them were men of small intelligence? They were all the biggest Shiva devotees!! Further, Vama devata is the Rishi of Shiv sadhna too. And finally Rama! AND KRISHNA!! And Arjuna! Why would they worship and Shiva? umm... any answers to that? You failed to answer before anything on this. And none of the GBCs could answer it too. I guess all you can imply is that Shiva is worshipped for material gains? This is so not true. Sadly you are not able to see both sides of the same coin - Shiva-Vishnu. And lastly, the conclusion you came out with in deciding Shiva's position as a mere Demi-God is false. Simply because, Shiva is impossible to undersand with some intellectual debate and this is what you are trying to do. Srimad Bhagwatam explains nicely - that he can be understood only in the state of deep trance (Turiya awastha or Nirvikalpa Samadhi), not in the state of sleep, dream, emotional turmoil, etc.

Agreed Atanu. This evokes only offenses. Nothing comes out of God positioning agenda that the Gaudiyas follow. Fact still remains to be true that without any self realization or elevation of one's spiritual level, there is no liberation. What planet krishna lives or shiva lives or whether it is ten miles higher or lower is irrelevant unless one becomes qualified to reach there. And qualification can come only by sadhna, not by plain book reading or vedantic discussions. God is also the highest rasa, and rasa can only be experienced - not debated. Nobody was able to touch him by debates. When Arjuna had to seek help from Lord Shiva, he went into a forest and did sadhna for many days. With proper knowledge of mantra, pranayama, bandha, mudras, shaktipaat and meditation. Krishna himself reveals this kriya in Bhagwat Gita. But, maybe instead he should've gone for book distribution or nama-hata? Before I came in contact with them, I was neutral and didn't know this God positioning thing. But slowly I became a bit defensive about it with a lot of provocation. not good. But my position on Shiva and Vishnu (Rama, Krishna) is clear. I'm a Shiva devotee, but worship both and see the closest relation between the two to a point that they are no more two but one. SadaShiva creates as Brahma, sustains as Vishnu and destroys as Rudra. One may also think the same for Vishnu. Here all the arguments end personally for me in this respect. Thanks for your messages and vital quotes. My best wishes and appreciation.

ummm.. lol ! Yes I can see why.

Only great personalities can understand the Shiva-Krishna; Shiva Rama relationship. It is very special. And my emphasis has been on recognizing the beauty of it, rather than keep up the God positioning agenda. And no, I don't dismiss this as "another story". Shiva burned Kama Deva to ashes. Shiva cannot be affected by Kama. So he cannot be thought of as a simple man's lust forcing him to indulge into mundane sexual activity! Its a sin to think like that. Shiva sees things from the eye of yoga and not from an ordinary materialistic view. He is also Ardhnarishwara who has complete realized male and female energies within. His relation with Mohini avatara of Vishnu is beyond understanding of ordinary souls. Just like Krishna's stealing the clothes of gopis is NOT to be understood by a viewpoint of sexual lust. Shiva says: "I'm in the heart of Vishnu and Vishnu is in my heart ever. This is the highest secret and no one knows it." He further adds - "those devotees of mine who condemn Vishnu or devotees of Vishnu who condemn me go to the low lying hell called 'Raurav'." There is no question of his being "servant" or "dasa" of Krishna or Krishna being a dasa. This relation is of greatest affection and love. It is to be understood and accepted as it is without perching one above the other. Simply because we don't have the knowledge of the self to start with. And we want to understand the Shiva Tatva. This is not possible. Self realization is important.

Thank you for your answer Yogesh. Makes sense.

Also since Vedas are the highest authority, what's the need of books like CC and SB? If you really believe Vedas to be highest authority, then read those quotes as well, posted by Atanu from Rig Veda and Sama Veda hailing Lord Rudra / Shiva!! Why would you reject them? They are Vedas alright!! Om Namah Shivaya! Jai Gurudev!

You could give no answer to all I've written, simply dismissing it as emotional rant! What Rudra are you talking about? There are thousands of Rudras!!! Brahma says that about one Rudra, but look what Brahma says elsewhere while worshipping Lord Siva!!! He hails Shiva as the top most deity to be worshiped and recognizes him as the master of the universe too!! You don't quote that! Why not? Are you really talking about Lord Sadashiva? We are talking about Shiva here! I dare you show me one place where Krishna - your top most object of worship says that Lord Sadashiva is a mere "Demi-God"! Krishna never said that. He lived on this planet for about 112 to 125 years according to different souces. Since he didn't say that, you bring up other scriptures to back up your nonsense. But when it comes to Krishna, you only quote what Krishna said. In other cases, you simply ignore even what Krishna says. This clarifies your sect's position as non-Vedic. You do not follow Vedic sadhna systems. If you are a Hare Krishna then the reading of Vedas is not for you. Because - Prabhupada didn't instruct on that. Then you are in direct opposition to your own lineage Guru and this discredits your statement. You are out of line. Let's see about your rant now. Just suppose for one micro second that Lord Shiva is a "Demi-God". Now you follow the Bhagwat Gita where Devkinandan says not to follow Demi-Gods. Prabhupada translates - "men of inferior knowledge worship 'Demi-Gods' ". Then why would this Krishna worship Lord Shiva - a so claimed "Demi-God" with so much sincerity and devotion??? This would now prove that Krishna was a man of inferior knowledge? He was if I have to follow your logic!! Again Krishna was born of Devaki. Why don't you replace Krishna idol with Devaki on your altar then? Further more, I would like the GBC members to issue a statement that Mahabharata is concocted!!! This is the stupidest emotional desperate statement that I am hearing from someone who wants to prove their point. Maybe I should write a letter asking Bhaktivaibhava GoSwami or Gopal Krishna GoSwami for their opinion on this.. By the way, the same translated English version of Mahabharata was also given to me by a GBC member from the US. If this is mistranslated, then where is the real translation. Why couldn't Prabhupada translate this? Because this glorifies Lord Shiva? And now you have problem with this? Problem - where Krishna himself glorifies Shiva? Again, if I have to believe you, then Narsimha dev is below the pillar position from which it appeared! ;-) So we can assume that the Pillar is greater than Narsimhadev. Let's worship the stone pillar instead then.

I think you are confusing the yugas. Shiva showed the universal form much before Krishna and this was not in Treta Yuga. He showed the form to Rama. Krishna did say this universal form is seen by none before (except for himself). Now the question would arise that if Shiva showed Krishna (then in Rama incarnation), then how can Krishna display the same form to Arjuna? To know this, one has to understand the real relation between Hari and Shiva. This is the most intimate and closest relation in all the universes. And is not to be understood by those who blasphemy other sampradayas or are against Shiva or Vaishnava. Shiva gita and Samhita clearly state this relation in Lord Shiva's own words. Fortunately enough for me, I've accepted this Shiva-Vishnu relation and don't feel putting down any of them, as it is way to hell. Lord Shiva's being the 11th avatara as Hanumana to help and serve Rama is also mentioned in Shiv Gita. Read it.

Yes Shiva says this to Rama in shiv Gita too. You may not believe it, but I still suggest you get a copy and read it devotionally. It is right there in the Padma Puran, that SP quoted much.

..oops someone just woke up in the US to decide the position of Lord Shiva! Lord Shiva who while blinks an eyelid - several of Brahma's nights pass... One Brahma's day is the complete cycle of all yugas.. Now we have someone who can finally give a verdict on Lord Shiva. Great!! This can be decided by someone who knows Shiva. And as stated in the Mahabharata, no one except Krishna knew Shiva at the time. Now the time is more degraded. If you are a Prabhupada disciple, then Prabhupada definitely is NO authority on Lord Shiva! Secondly, if quotes from Mahabharata are to be rejected, then you will have to reject the whole story of the Pandavas as concocted. And you will have to dismiss Bhagwat Gita itself as concocted. Bhagwat Gita is just a part of Mahabharata!!! Rigveda or SamaVeda don't talk about the Pandavas either. Further, you will have to reject the exhistence of Radha as a Vedic character. That nullifies your claim that Gaudiyas and Iskcon are propagating Vedic culture. The only mention of Radha that one of your fellow devotees could show me was in the so called Amala Purana Bhagwatam. That too at just one place. And the translation and purport were wrong. 'Aradhita' was translated as "mentioning of Radha in a concealed way since the author fell in to a trance as soon as he pronounced the word Radha." Of course this is a lot of speculation, since the author couldn't fall into a trance by remembering Lord Krishna himself, Lord Rama or Shiva but fell into a trance by merely saying Radha. This explaination is at the most laughable. Furthermore you will have to reject a lot more things that you consider Vedic if everything is to be understood and conculded in such a speculative manner. Shiva is not a Demi God to start with. This Demi God propaganda comes from the gaudiya kitchen. If you reject Krishna's worship of Mahadeva as GOD and begetting a son from his boon and mercy then you definitely are in illusion. This is a proven fact widely accepted. Umm.. but the Gaudiyas live in their own special world though, and nothing seems to ever bring them up or out of it. If you reject Krishna's taking Pashupat Diksha (initiation) from the great sage Upmanyu Rishi, then again you are at your liberty to do so. You can also reject Rama's worshipping Shiva at Rameshwaram and Rama's worshipping Shiva after receiving Virja Diksha from Agastya Muni. Nobody rejects the authority of Agastya. You may also reject altogether the Valmiki Ramayana and guess what? You can reject the greatest Rishi that history has known - Vishwamitra!! You can reject Vishwamitra's words spoken to Rama who in his previous incarnation as Vamadeva worshipped Shiva too. Further more you can reject the illustrous Queen Kunti who was a staunch Shiva devotee. If you happen to go to India to a place called Bhojpur, you can still see the 21 feet tall Shiva Linga that Kunti used to worship. From its height you can imagine the size of that great Queen. You can also reject the austerities of Queen Gandhari, another staunch Shiva devotee who at the end of Mahabharat war cursed Krishna that his generation will end in genocide. And this happened indeed. You can also reject queen Rukmini - the dear wife of Krishna who was going to worship at the Shiva temple before her marriage when Krishna came to abduct her. The tradition was to go to the Shiva temple to worship Shiva before any auspicious and important event in life. Yes you can reject any quotes from Mahabharata!! You can take only those ones that you can understand and believe. Others you can reject - even though the speaker of the text is Krishna himself!! Even though the speaker of the text is Bhishma. Even though the speaker of the text is the Lord himself. Doesn't matter. Because when you become a part of a sect, your mind is controlled by its shortmindedness. BUT, I fail to understand that if you so staunchly follow Bhagwat Gita which is just a part of Mahabharata, then why do you quote Padma Purana and not accept Shiva Gita which is also a part of it!! Do you accept Puranas in parts? or at convenience? Now why would someone concoct verses in mahabharata to be in direct opposition to Vedas?? I can't see the logic behind your speculation at all. If Narsimha appeared out of a wall, does this mean that he was born out of a wall?? This is the speculation. If you read the Shiva Mahapurana carefully and read the time of Shiva's marriage to Parvati, he was asked his Gotra! I guess it may not be of importance to you since (if you are American) you may not have any Gotra at all! But Shiva says his father is Brahma, then he is asked, who is his grandfather? Shiva says Vishnu! And again he is asked who is his great garadfather? He replies that he himself is his greatgrandfather. I would not go into quoting exact phrases from Shiva Purana here. But this is what we accept. If you belong to a sect that is essentially driven by sakhi/gopi mood concentrating on Krishna alone then you can talk about Krishna, but you can't be an authority on Shiva / Rudra! Shiva resides in the hearts of Gods, as quoted by Atanu in a previous message somewhere. Further, if you believe Shiva as "Evil" (you are quoting this to imply it) and this gets your spiritual life into trouble, then you shoul give instances where Shiva/Rudra is evil. What happened to all his benevolent forms that protect his devotees? What happened to all his wonderful lilas that are even rare for Gods to witness? Rudra is beyond your understanding!! Krishna recites 1008 names of Shiva to please him. Now was Krishna pleasing and worshipping evil? Where is your logic man? There is a height to fanaticism! Read again the appearance of the fire linga that permeated all the universes that neither Brahma or Vishnu could understand. That is Rudra, that is Shiva, that is Mahadeva, he is Adi deva!! He is not Visvambhar Mishra nor Prabhupada. Shiva is Mahakaal! Beyond the boundaries of time and space. His maya permeates the universes, but he himself is not affected by any maya nor is affected by any of the three gunas. Also, you quoted Veda, but you don't read any!!! Prabhupada never allowed his disciples to carry extensive Vedic studies. On the contrary he instructed people to read ONLY literature translated by him and him alone. So again you are in direct opposition to your lineage, belief. Another double standard. Conclusively, you can ignore this message all together and move on with your life believing Shiva is evil and Mahabharat is concocted story. No offenses. But if you simply come up to a site to inflict offenses, then that's not all that fair. Om Namah Shivaya !!!

Yes so you don't read the Vedas. But what do you have to do with Ramanujacharya or MAdhavacharya? You do not even accept them fully? So why quote them? Lord Shiva says in Shiv Gita to Rama - that of all the Vedas, he is to be known.

Since when did you start quoting Rig Veda? Or commenting on Sama Veda? Prabhupada has restricted you from reading any other literature that does not bear his purport and translation. You do not find any literature authentic unless Prabhupada translated. So you are defying your own Parampara Guru by quoting any other literature / scripture that is not SP translated! lol Stick to one standard!

V shaped Tilak is not the only tilak used by Hindus. Most Hindus categorized into three basic categories - the Shaivas who wear the auspicious tripunda on their forehead and body with sandal paste or ash, the vaishnavas - who use the V shaped tilak usually made with sandal paste or safron and the Shaktas who also use the red tilka with kumkum, gorochan and ashtgandha.. These tilaks further are worn in different fashions according to sub categories etc. But these are the basic tilak markings. Like most vaishnava tilaks also differ - the gaudiyas, the Ramanandis etc..

Well said guest!!

Dear devotee, Each time a question is address that is not answerable, you get offended and resort to escape tactics as - "blasphemy", "Vaishnava Aparadha" etc.. Sampradaism is good since it conveys a certain line philosophy completely through a disciplic succession, but then you have to rise above it to remove the barriers that sampradayas keep you from accepting or recognizing any other schools of thoughts. This is a main reason of inter-sampradayik quarrels that creat nothing but a breeding ground for "aparadhas" / offenses to and for all. Again, it is good to glorify your Guru, sampradaya, but when you get too fanatic about it, you may start putting down others. In order to be more defensive about your own line of philosophy you may end up becoming more and more offensive to others. Now answers and comments to your message: What I mean by stories is that most of this is about telling and listening to stories and reading out books that are followed fanatically. Stories in line with your thought are hailed with much fanfare, but the ones that are not, are put down, ignored. Progress in yoga is based on practical 'anubhuti'. And if you haven't got any results from your sadhna, then you can't preach, at least in verious forms of yoga / tantra and other Vedic sadhnas because your knowledge is incomplete. Did Arjuna read and translate a lot of books or did book distribution? umm.. I believe the Vedic sadhnas in those days were different from now. And if we don't follow Vedic ways of Sadhnas, then how Vedic are we... is the question. One may read, but unless he gets an experience and anubhuti from his practice, the progress is not fully ripe. Simply being emotional is not enough to progress spiritually. Too much emotions can lead to heart attacks and kidney failures. I can be all emotional and jump out the window, but Hari is not going to appear before me. If you are to be considered a successful businessman, the sign is your business should run well and reap benefits, goodwill and expand. But if I simply read ten volumes of books on macro economics and business and claim that I know all about business and am indeed a successful businessman, then that is not a very valid statement. What do you think? If you really surrender yourself to your Guru (as you've stated), then this is very commendable. Everything starts with the SadGuru (if he really is one), as he is the representative of the Lord. You haven't seen the Lord, but have seen the Guru. As far as the Bona-Fide disciplic succession is concerned, then I appreciate the Gaudiya lineage. But when you say Lord Krishna-Lord Chaitanya etc. and say that it is an unbroken line - Brahma-Madhava-Chaitanya Sampradaya, then it raises eyebrows! You mentioned Krishna- then Chaitanya. Officially it comes from Brahma!! Is this lineage unbroken? Hardly. It is broken from Madhavacharya. If Madhavacharya is considered the Senior Guru in the succession, senior than Sri Chaitanya, but the Gaudiyas do not agree with Madhava's philosophy at many points and do not accept it, then the lineage IS broken! The lineage is essentially 500 years old Chaitanya Gaudiya Sampradaya. This philosophy is further altered and modified, even more after Jiva Goswami... During this course several of the origianl Vedic sadhnas philosophies are altered too. And new scriptures written or purported to match the new way of thinking. It is further divided into different smaller sects and maths who base themselves on the same philosophy, but many political and policy differences. The movement goes down are Chaitanya, but again gain momentum with efforts of BhaktiVinod Thakur a former deputy megistrate with the then British Government. Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati's disciples further establish their own maths and are still divided on various issues within themselves. As far as I know, Iskcon does not warmly interacts with the Gaudiyas either. And within Iskcon, there are much differences with using Hindu catch words to attract Hindu population funds in countries. There are people for and against this in Iskcon. So the disciplic succession you are talking about is there, but original philosophies are altered and adulterated. On example from the Bhagwatam: Sorry I can't remember that exact place I read this, but your scholars can recognize this. The Lord says that he does not appear to the bhakta in the mode of sheer emotions, not in the state of sleep, being awake, half sleep, unconscious etc.. That he is revealed only in the state of a deep trance. This is clearly stated in the Bhagwatam and I read the Prabhupada translated version. BUT, then I further read his purport which sums up that it is vital to eat Prasadam offered to God and chant and sing and this is it! Now we know that the trance talked about originally is the state of Nirvikalpa Samadhi! ... no comments. Most of the commentaries do not match however, original Vedic ways of 'sadhnas' and philosophy. But it is in line with bhakti tradition. Finally, not to go into intricate details of where things go different, I will say that simple hearted earnest bhakti is fair. BUT this does not give you an authority to put everyone else down. You talk about Yog (Yoga). This means union. Union of the self with Super consciousness. You cannot know Superconsciousness merely by playing bells and symbals and shouting out loud, but there is a chance to know the self. Unless you know one of the two, where is the possibility of Yoga? It is a very high and not easy process. But Sri Chaitanya gave a simple process of chanting the Hare Krishna (Krsna) Mantra for people who are not capable of undergoing Vedic way of sadhnas that are much higher in order. This is the same Chaitanya (born Visvambhar Mishra) who was initiated into Gopal Mantra by advait Guru and later initiated into sanyas by another advaita Guru. This simple process of singing dancing and chanting brings devotional joy, love and compassion. There are no other moods that it is supposed to bring. And these moods are reflected towards the Lord Hari as well as other devotees AND non-devotees. Remember most devotees preaching and reading out to others that the Lord is in the heart of every living being and a devotee sees them alike! But when it comes down to fighting, defending "my sampradaya, my Guru, my organization etc" this mood is lost! Completely. We start resorting to "Blasphemy" etc words. We need extreme words to pin down our so called 'oponent' who is no longer another jiva created and sustained by Shri Hari and we get down to offending the Lord who also resides in his heart! A former friend (JMD) of mine who is a direct American disciple of Srila Prabhupada started putting me down saying "Hindu-Shmindu hodge podge" I tried to explain him, but useless. He knew i worship Lord Shiva!! And he was childish enough to say that Lord Shiva is "NOT GOD" and this is "nonsense" and that if I did not accept everything that comes from Iskcon and Prabhupada only and bow down to all devotees, then I will be blasphemied and get very bad reaction etc. I do not accept this kind of radical behavior and extremism! This sounds no better than a muslim "Fatwa" blasphemi ! And yes you are right, Shiva (or Hari) can really be understood by his own mercy only! And the mercy of Shri Guru! I indeed pray to the Lord of all Lords to give me such mercy. And wish he does the same for you, if you are earnest. Om Namah Shivaya!!

Umm... Govindam Adim Purusham.. But Shiva is the Adi Deva! And the Maha Deva! If Brahma says that to Hari he also prays to Shiva as the top most deity in the universe to be worshipped. Why don't you quote that too? Brahma worshipped Shiva too! Quote that too! Krishna recognizes Shiva as The God to be worshipped and that if one gets the lotus feet of Mahadev, there is nothing that he needs anymore in all the universes. Besides, why would you recognize Brahma Samhita as authentic if you you don't recognize samhitas like Shiv Samhita for example? Why such partiality? Why is Prabhupada the dearmost servant of Hari? What happened to other devotees all through the bhakti kaal? What happened to Mira Bai, Goswami Tulsidas, Kabir, Tukaram and teh list of "enlightened saints" goes on..! Let's accept some non-bengalis too! ;-) There have been saints outside bengal too.

Story time over? Excuse me but "Shiva will not make such an aparadha etc..." seem childish statements! There are no definitions of "aparadha" for the Lord of all the Universes! the Lord who showed all the ten avataras of Vishnu including Krishna avatara and his lila of killing Kamsa in his Universal form to Rama more than a yuga before the appearance of Krishna himself, doesn't need to meditate on an object to achieve something or doesn't need to go by the ten aparadha definitions of Rupa Goswami!! 1. Who decided Lord Shiva's "platform"?? No one I have heard or known of! 2. "If Lord Krishna becomes Lord Shiva's servant" - upto here is correct. But then "it is because he says" is taken from another place to give the mood you want. Why Krishna worshipped Shiva is told by Krishna himself in the Mahabharata - Anushasana Parva!!! That is the correct answer. Krishna serves his servants and devotees at many occassions - Arjuna's case is a major one. Yes here he says that he gets bound by their love. He gets bound by the love of the Gopis as well and of course, of Radha. But Krishna ellaborately explains why he worshipped Shiva. And why Krishna became the greatest Shiva Bhakta - the greated Shaiva!!! Om Namah Shivaya!!

Yes this is the Yajur Veda verse. So right!!! I used to wonder why they hardly quote the Vedas like Yajur, Sama and Rig?! And why they had to retranslate most of the scriptures they use! The answer is clear.

Well your post is blasphemous and Shaiva aparadha!! Your effort to belittle Lord Shiva is tamasic and aparadha. I have studied Sanskrit. And the commentaries are different than what the original verse says. Shiva Mahapurana is not a Tamasic Purana!!! Lord Shiva is not affected by any sort of gunas!! So how can a Purana praising the glories of Shiva be Tamasic? There is no logic in your talk. Secondly I've quoted the Mahabharata to which nobody from Iskcon can ever comment. You can bring up other things but can't comment on the original verses that krishna himself say in Mahabharat's anushasana Parva!! And as far as cooked up puranas are concerned, then the number of scriptures that the Gaudiyas have cooked up and twisted are so many that they are leading the public into believing that it is indeed the Vedic culture. If this wasn't the case then Prabhupada wouldn't have restricted his symbal bearing flock not to read any other literature except from the one that he wrote commentary on. There is a lot of duality in your culture. The books you quoted are not commented by Prabhupada. If you go by his rule then you should not even be quoting or reading them in the first place. Krishna himself and Rama himself accepts Shiva as the object of their worship!! Bhishma Pitamah who was a highly elevated sage and highly respected by Krishna himself says that Madhava has pleased and worshiped Shiva in every incarnation. So if I read what BHishma and Rishi Upmanyu says, and what Prabhupada says then I would certainely be accepting their words over Prabhupada's! Prabhupada is no match for Rishi Upmanyu or Bhishma. If Krishna says that he worshipped Lord Shiva adn accepts him as the highest object of worship, then I have to accept it. Its a different matter what the gaudiyas say and preach. They don't preach the original Vedas. And that's why they had to write so much literature from a their own point of view. I don't feel obliged to accept that over the original Vedic knowledge. Still you can't comment on the Anushasana Parva. You can't comment on Bhishma's words. On shri Krishna's words!! Om Namah Shivaya.

Again, another one sided interpretation. Here the verse says "serving" not a devotee! Also, if I get a boon from Lord Shiva and his power does something for me, I can say that I am being served by Shiva? This is how you can see it. If a swami gets a donation of a thousand dollars from a rich man, then of course it can be indeed said that the rich man served him. But it doesn't make either of the two as bigger or smaller. They can be just different.