Ganeshprasad

Jai Ganesh

SB 4.6.42: Lord Brahma said: My dear Lord Shiva, I know that you are the controller of the entire material manifestation, the combination father and mother of the cosmic manifestation, and the Supreme Brahman beyond the cosmic manifestation as well. I know you in that way.

Please note

And the supreme Brahman beyond the cosmic manifestation

Contemplate on supreme Brahman there is nothing beyond that, he is one without a second, wise know him by different names. Do not try and explain this away by some thing else."

Re

(Again, do I have to repeat? Shiva is described as the 'divine halo of the Supreme Brahman' - therefore Brahma addresses him in that way, for he knows that the source of Lord Shiva is the Supreme Brahman.)

Again I ask you where in this statement Brahma mentions divine halo?

Re

( When Brahma says that Krishna transforms himself for the work of destruction to become Lord Shiva, Brahma means that Shiva is a transformation of Krishna, just as curd is a transformation of milk.)

And what does Krishna says himself in bg.

Undivided, yet appears as if divided in beings; He, the object of knowledge, is the creator, sustainer, and destroyer of (all) beings. (13.17)

He is one without a second.

Re

(Now, I don't deny that Shiva is the divine halo of Krishna. Yet you are denying Brahma's comments that Shiva comes from Krishna. It is you who are selectively accepting some Vedic quotes and rejecting others. Also, I am not degrading Shiva's position, I am describing it as it is.)

nor do I ever deny Krishna is supreme Brahman, as for who is selective, god knows who is doing it, I have based my discussion on Gita and Bhagvad, since a lot of you will reject anything else written in other purans as if to say Shree Vyasdev did not know what he was writing.

I accept Lord Krishna says I am Shiva amongst Rudra in Gita or when he says iam mahesvara or undivided, yet appears as if divided.

Or Prajapati praying to Lord Shiva as supreme, or Brahma Praying to Lord Shiva.

Re

(No-one, including Shiva devotees, will deny that Shiva-tattva is a mixture of spiritual and material energy.)

Supreme Brahman is not devoid of this energy.

"I do not for a minute think otherwise but fact is he descend to this material world therefore he interacts with it."

Re

(No he does not, everywhere the Lord goes is transcendental. When he appeared in Vrindavana, it is transcendental. The people he associate with are eternal associates from the spiritual world. Now, when he wants to administer the material world, he transforms into Shiva, as Brahma already explains.)

show me one place the lord is not there, he pervades everything therefore every thing is transcendental.

"These are lords energy and as such he can never be detach from it. He is known as ardhnarishvara. How can the lord be affected by his own energy?

This is what prajapati says in this regard;

SB 8.7.33: Exalted, self-satisfied persons who preach to the entire world think of your lotus feet constantly within their hearts. However, when persons who do not know your austerity see you moving with Umā, they misunderstand you to be lusty, or when they see you wandering in the crematorium they mistakenly think that you are ferocious and envious. Certainly they are shameless. They cannot understand your activities.

He is beyond this material creation he can never be affected by his own energy."

Re

(When i say Shiva engages with the illusory energy, I am in no way considering him to be lusty. Do not send wild accusations at me. I am simply describing Shiva's role. As Brahma explains, Shiva combines with Shakti, and through Maha-Vishnu's glance the material manifestation is created. This is not to say that Shiva is lusty, it is to say that Shiva's role is to create the material universes, not to create the spiritual world.)

Sorry I did not say or think he is under illusion, prajapati said they can not understand your activities, so just let us leave it to that.

"Now when he is self effulgent, parabrahman how can he be under illusion?

Where there is light there is no darkness, have you ever heard of sun covered up by darkness?"

Re

(Please read the quote carefully. Shiva is described as impersonal brahman, which is originally Prabrahman. In other words Shiva is the universal impersonal feature of the Lord, and He is originally (he originates from) Parabrahman (Krishna).)

Shiva is described as cause of all causes supreme Brahman which is originally parabrahman.

No where do they say you originate from Parabrahman they say you are originally parabrahman.

Originally does not mean originate

This is the dictionary meaning;

(at) first, in/at the beginning, to begin with, initially, in the first place, at the outset.

Re

"Does he say reject those other purans?"

(If one is serious about Spiritual self-realisation, and Lord Shiva says that something is in the mode of ignorance, does it not make sense to avoid that thing which is in ignorance? )

Answer the question asked, we both take the meaning of statement in different light, if it was ignorance there was no need to write that, nor the rihi to narrate it.

Re

(Srila Vyasadeva wrote those puranas for those who are in the mode of ignorance. If one wants to stay at that level, he can accept the conclusions of those puranas.

In other words your conclusion those who read them will remain in ignorance for ever,

But there is one grace Lord Shiva will be their savior.

Re

( Again, even those puranas make sense, when they are read in the light of the sattvic puranas.)

Only sense one would make reading all the purans is that Lord is one who goes by different names.

Re

(So you accuse Lord Shiva of lying.)

No, but his activities are very difficult to understand

Re

(So now you accuse Narayana of lying.)

No but you did not answer my question, at what point of time?

Re

(Krishna says so in the Gopala Tapaniya Upanishad. Are you going to accuse him of lying?)

No but i do not have the Upanishad to verify what you have quoted.

Re

(U accuse me of putting spin on the legitimate acharya commentary that i quote, and you then yourself put a spin on Shiva's statements, claiming that he is 'acting as if he was once in ignorance'.)

I simply do not understand his activities, but I know the supreme Brahman can not be under illusion of his own energy.

Re

( As for Rama, transcendental feelings of separation is not ignorance. And in any case, Rama never explicitly stated 'I am under the influence of ignorance'. )

I would never said Ram is under ignorance, others might misconstrue his action as if in ignorance that was the point.

Re

(In contrast, Lord Shiva states 'I prayed to Krishna to become free from ignorance'. That is why Lord Shiva is self-effulgent, because he was freed from ignorance.)

Self-effulgent means just that, there is no question of ignorance.

Hare Krishna and Om Namo Shivaya

Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh

Re

(There is no question of blame. Before I was posting as guest. I am sorry, I had no idea the discussion would go so far. So now I have registered.)

Thank you it helps. Is this the first time you have had discussion with me?

Re

(I apologise, I made a mistake, Shiva has his own tattva. Above marginal, but below spiritual. )

Thank you, but you are still wrong trying to degrade his position here is what brahma says;

SB 4.6.42: Lord Brahmā said: My dear Lord Śiva, I know that you are the controller of the entire material manifestation, the combination father and mother of the cosmic manifestation, and the Supreme Brahman beyond the cosmic manifestation as well. I know you in that way.

Please note

And the supreme Brahman beyond the cosmic manifestation

Contemplate on supreme Brahman there is nothing beyond that, he is one without a second, wise know him by different names. Do not try and explain this away by some thing else.

Re

(The Lord always remains transcendental. He says fools deride me and think I descend in a human form.)

I do not for a minute think otherwise but fact is he descend to this material world therefore he interacts with it.

Re

(He engages and unites with shakti (Durga/Parvati etc). Therefore he engages with illusory energy.)

These are lords energy and as such he can never be detach from it. He is known as ardhnarishvara. How can the lord be affected by his own energy?

This is what prajapati says in this regard;

SB 8.7.33: Exalted, self-satisfied persons who preach to the entire world think of your lotus feet constantly within their hearts. However, when persons who do not know your austerity see you moving with Umā, they misunderstand you to be lusty, or when they see you wandering in the crematorium they mistakenly think that you are ferocious and envious. Certainly they are shameless. They cannot understand your activities.

He is beyond this material creation he can never be affected by his own energy.

Re

(Also Shiva had to pray to Krishna to become free from illusion, as confirmed by the Upanishads. Which by the way you still choose not to respond to.)

SB 8.7.24: You are the cause of all causes, the self-effulgent, inconceivable, impersonal Brahman, which is originally Parabrahman. You manifest various potencies in this cosmic manifestation.

Now when he is self effulgent, parabrahman how can he be under illusion?

Where there is light there is no darkness, have you ever heard of sun covered up by darkness?

Re

(Once again you ask me to respond for the fourth time to your prajapati quote. As i have said countless times, Shiva is not described in that quote as the only original person.)

Are there more then one supreme Brahman?

"Or when Lord Brahma prays to Lord Shiva as the Supreme Brahman beyond the cosmic manifestation"

re

(Again, I have responded to this already. Brahma prays to Lord Shiva, who is the Supreme Brahman transformed for the work of destruction. There is no spin, since Brahma himself confirms this in Brahma Samhita.)

I ask you again is there more then one supreme Brahman?

"Whoever is Lord Hari, He Himself is Lord Shiva indeed.

Any human being mistake both the lord to be different, he/she surely go to hell!"

Re

(We are all constitutive of the same elements (therefore non-different) as the Lord (sat-cit-ananda). That does not mean we are God.)

Are you serious? Are we talking about us? This is about Hari and Hara do not mistake them to be different that is what the statement says.

Re

(So Lord Shiva cries foul when he says the Shiva Purana and Linga Purana is in the mode of ignorance? I am crying foul simply for following his instructions?)

Does he say reject those other purans? Vayasdev wrote those purans does he say reject them? Do you know who recite them and to whom? Contemplate on the names of those purans, who and what are the subject matters, who are those personality that are associated with those gunas and then perhaps one might make a correct conclusion if one has an open mind.

Re

(And once again, I receive no response to my real questions about Lord Shiva's statements. We are back to square one. If you have so much confidence in your argument, please answer those questions, like I have answered yours. Just because my answers do not satisfy you does not mean you should avoid answering any of mine. At least I have addressed your objections.)

I have always answered all your question it is you who always pick and choose.

You also know the reason why I chose not to answer further question is because you called Siva a jiva.

Re

(I think your real annoyance is with the fact that there can be no other meaning to Lord Shiva saying he had to pray to Krishna to become free from ignorance than exactly what he says.)

I have no annoyance about anything, nor do I have any illusion about lord Shiva be under any illusion, he is self effulgence the question does not arise.

Re

( There can be no other meaning when it says Narayana existed before Siva and Brahma.)

Since we are all eternal what to speak of lord shiva, this is a childish argument, at what point of time are you talking about?

It is like saying Newton discovered law of gravity as if to say gravity did not exist before that.

Re

(There can be no other meaning when Krishna says Shiva is covered by my illusory energy.)

Where and when does Krishna says this?

Re

(There can be no other meaning when Shiva says to Parvati that the highest form of worship is that of Krishna.)

Shiva would say that for Krishna, but Krishna would say the same for Shiva.

Re

(Yet no where have you managed to bring up anything where Krishna is saying that he was ever under the influence of illusion or ignorance.)

why would I want to, have I said any where that Krishna is not god?

Re

( Now, for the umpteenth time please answer my question: Do you agree to Lord Shiva's statement that he was freed from ignorance by praying to Krishna?)

simple answer NO.

Re

( And do you agree that the Supreme Lord could never have been under the influence of ignorance?)

Yes, but don’t ever think that he cant act as if he is under the influence of ignorance, just an example, like when Ram cried when mother Sita was abducted.

Re

(I suspect I will still get many other comments, without getting a simple yes or no answer from you...)

Wrong again.

Hare Krishna and Om Namo Shivaya

Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh

Re

(Ganeshprasad, I am the one you were debating with about Shiva and Krsna. This is the first post I have submitted in this thread, so don't confuse...)(this is from another thread)

Do you blame me, it is difficult to keep up with so many guests, without any Id, and it is hard to tell who one is debating with.

Re

(And to clear up:

Vishnu Tattva - Krishna and avatars of Vishnu (spiritual, does not engage in illusory energy)

Shiva Tattva - Shiva (spiritual, but engages with illusory energy or shakti)

Jiva Tattva - souls (spiritual, but covered by illusory energy)

You have tried to clear up in response to this statement of yours (God has multifarious energies, of which there are three major categories. Spiritual energy - Krishna and his personal expansions. Marginal energy - souls including Shiva, the highest of souls in the marginal energy. Finally, material energy - which is inanimate.)

I am afraid you have cleared up nothing, all this gradation is your speculation.

Your statement marginal energy- souls including Shiva, means Shiva is a jiva.

That is blasphemy

Even if you apply the Brahma shamita statement that Krishna transforms him self to Sambhu, none of your above statement makes sense.

You say Krishna is spiritual but does not engage in illusory energy, so tell me how does he come to earth?

Lord Shiva spiritual but engages with illusory energy, but of course he is Maya pati, what does this all prove?

In your recent statement you are asking why we don’t believe what Lord Shiva says in purans.

I may ask you the same question why don’t you believe when prajapati are prying to lord Shiva, why do you speculate and try put a spin on it to conform with your position?

Or when Lord Brahma prays to Lord Shiva as the Supreme Brahman beyond the cosmic manifestation.

Or This "Vishnu puran 5.33.46

Yo hariH sa ZivaH sakSad yaH zivaH sa svayamM hariH

Ye tayor bhedamAti stahan narakAya bhave nnaraH

Whoever is Lord Hari, He Himself is Lord Shiva indeed.

Any human being mistake both the lord to be different, he/she surely go to hell"

How is it when it comes to quoting from purans other then the one which extols the lord who is in mode of goodness, some of you cry foul are you saying Shree Vyasdev did not know what he was writing?

Mode of satvik, rajsik and tamsik are the subject matter of the 18 purans, people make their own speculated judgment to suit their position.

There are so many flows in your argument this is one of them;

Prakrti - Material Energy (illusory energy)

Finally, material energy - which is inanimate.

Inanimate means lifeless, insentient, without life; dead, defunct.

Lord is one without a second wise know him by different names.

Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh

Re

(he calls Lord Shiva a jiva.

––where?))

If you are the same person i had been debating with i be happy to quote.

How ironic person who is so personal about god is afraid to have an ID on this forum.

Re

(politic is your religion... do not try to cheat posing as sanatana dharmi)

What ever, where have i cheated you?

for your info., i do not belong to any party nor any sect.

If i pose as a sanatana dharmi one day it will help.

if you like the muslim, why dont you become one?

Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh

I wish you all the best, you are debating with someone if I am correct in assuming is the same person I had been debating with. Looks like he has an acute case of vaishnavities, to the point that he calls Lord Shiva a jiva.

And further quotes this,

Worshipping Lord Shiva as the source of all spiritual and material worlds is not true religion.

They have no respect for lord Shiva and their devotees; they forget that oldest known temple to man kind is of lord Shiva.

Some of them also discuss the merit of Subhadra and Bhadra, and feel happy amongst them self when they state that the one is internal superior energy of lord and the other is external inferior energy; they forget the energy and the energetic can not be separated.

What is more amazing is that they are both sisters of Lord Krishna; can you imagine supreme lord discriminate between the two? Only fools like me who are envious of the Lord can think so.

What disturb me more is some of them are happy to side with Muslims (cow killer) even though they are so anti Vedic.

I am happy to be in a company of advaiti, it is a concept derived from Vedas, and Lord Krishna does not deny this path either.

Question, is it 21 or 22 tirtha kund at Rameshvara?

Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh

Pranam maadhav ji

Asking for justice is not beging, but if it takes beging to get the justice I beg to sweet Lord.

As long as we have satya in our action we will triumph.

We must not remain blind to adhrmic pratice, and expose the lies of those so call do gooders in the name of religious tolerance, we see no tolerance from other side.

Dharma needs protecting.

The cows are crying out, in the land of Gopal they are not safe.

Hindu wake up let us protect the dharma, dharma will surely protect us.

SatyaMe vijayte

Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh

((we have no axe to grind against any one let alone a religion practices of others if they come in peace and friendship.))

Re

(zzSo leave alone this fact of religion and consider only faults and crimes)

So don’t be blind to all those faults and crimes perpetuated in the name of those so called religion. Non of them came in peace or are conducive to peaceful existence, they have nothing to offer except pain and misery.

((yes we like doing nama and puja, and this alien concept comes tell us you are all heathens or kafirs, and I am suppose to keep quiet. ))

Re

(zzIt seems to me that it is happening the opposite. Many hindu talibans, madhaav included, are preaching to stop religious practices to make war to muslims. That's simply adharma.... gone some asuras, they will be substituted by better ones)

No Hindu will ever ask anyone to stop religious practice, what madhaav is doing is exposing the lies of other so called religions. To wage war in the name of religion and religious conversion is evil but to protect dharma is actually worship, you it seems unable to distinguish between the two.

((I do not wish to pretend peace, that is Dhitrastra vision))

Re

(zzAlso Krsna's vision... He acts several times to bring peace between the two parties)

Yes but the blind did not listen

We have waited hundreds of years of justices, no aggressor or their kin’s would enjoy the fruit of their evil as they have done in Vedic land, why?

Because of our inherent dharmic nature, all we ask for is justice, fat chance from people like you, who prefer to remain blind.

((Yes but you converted that is a lot different from dogma))

Re

(zzOne has the right to believe in what he wants.... he has simply to not commit crimes)

How does this answer the above statement?

((I have no capacity to punish any one nor is that stated goal, protecting Dharma is.))

Re

(zzSo protect dharma avoiding to introduce adharmic discrimination... stop toconsider someone as enemy because he follows a different religion and vote a government more efficient in repressing terrorism.... other things are useless and adharmic)

your advice is useless, one must discriminate between right and wrong, islam has brought nothing but violence to this land and has nothing else to offer but violence, you remain blind to this fact, I have no problem with anyone religious practice, but facts are all there to see. Their aim was and still is to convert us kafirs are you telling me I am adharmic because I want to protect dharma?

Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh

You have done a wonderful service in exposing the lies, that goes around, this is a result of someone confined to narrow view of the supreme, discounting any other possibilities, despite so much evidence there is in this context.

This could be another lie. He quotes BG 11.43: Arjuna said: No one is equal to You, nor can anyone be one with You.

Here is the soka

pitasi lokasya caracarasya

tvam asya pujyas ca gurur gariyan

na tvat-samo 'sty abhyadhikah kuto 'nyo

loka-traye 'py apratima-prabhava

You are the father of this animate and inanimate world, and the greatest guru to be worshipped. No one is even equal to You in the three worlds; how can there be one greater than You? O Being of Incomparable Glory. (11.43)

Even I with my limited knowledge of Sanskrit i read this as nor can anyone be greater then you?

Where does it mention anything about being one with you?

If we read this slok(11.38) in context, then the oneness has to apply, or else how can so many forms be separate from the supreme?

You are the primal God, the most ancient Person. You are the ultimate resort of all the universe. You are the knower, the object of knowledge, and the supreme abode. The entire universe is pervaded by You, O Lord of the infinite form. (11.38)

This is one of his answer

“Note: yes supreme Krishna has become Shiva to rule the material manifestation”

He called Shiva a jiva, in his answer to my post, therefore using his statement above Krishna has become a jiva, who is blaspheming now?

Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh

Re

(ok, but i shall pray to the source of Shiva, Krishna as the Supreme Lord. Not the other way round. if you want to do the more indirect process, that's your choice.)

It is absolutely your choice, since the supreme Brahman is one without a second my worship to either one goes to the same he/she.

Undivided, yet appears as if divided in beings; He, the object of knowledge, is the creator, sustainer, and destroyer of (all) beings. (13.17)"

Re

(Yes, Krishna is the original - the others are divided appearances)

See you twist again he says the Brahman is undivided yet appears divided. Get the point?

Re

(Supreme Brahman has no added ingredient. Curd has no added ingredient from milk. it is a transformation.)

You refuse to see the point, as I said Brahman is one, but we all accept there are thousands of forms, as to how the same supreme Brahman in different forms, which is a real apparent different and yet is the same supreme, the example is given is of milk and curd made from the same ingredient yet different. It is not as if when you take milk and make yogurt the original milk has transformed to milk and the milk has lost its identity.

Re

(Now Shiva is the transformation. Krishna is the transformer. Shiva is the result of the transformation. Krishna is the source of the transformation.)

If you are acting you would have so many character transformations, that do not mean you as an actor have changed.

Re

(No shiva bhakta will say shiva tattva is same as vishnu tattva.)

Because they know the truth, yet their final destination is Siva lok the supreme Brahman.

Re

(saivites will also agree that shiva tattva is separate. God has multifarious energies, of which there are three major categories. Spiritual energy - Krishna and his personal expansions. Marginal energy - souls including Shiva, the highest of souls in the marginal energy. Finally, material energy - which is inanimate.)

This merit no further discussion, since you have a goal to equate Lord Shiva as a Jiva, I shell cease my discussion with you now, unfortunately because you post as a guest I would never know it is you I am discussion with, so in this matter I do not have a choice.

If you can contemplate on the fact that Lord Shiva has never taken Birth let alone dieing anywhere, you would not have made a statement like yours.

Styam Shivam Sunderam.

Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh

note to moderator please remove this so called art

Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh

I do not know your motive for asking me this question, nor do I know the context in which you are asking.

i had prepared an answer which i have edited

because your further post reveals your mind.

good luck and may god bless you.

Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh

Happy Navratri to all.

Ambe Mat Ki Jai

Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh

Faking or not you have made a lot of points, using your interpretation of the verses, i will not be able to do justice answering them, more i discuss i find my self trying to discuss against Krishna that is not my goal for he is my worsipble Lord.

I will take a break and enjoy the Navratri festival.

Ambe Mat Ki Jai

Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh

SB 4.6.42: Lord Brahma said: My dear Lord Shiva, I know that you are the controller of the entire material manifestation, the combination father and mother of the cosmic manifestation, and the Supreme Brahman beyond the cosmic manifestation as well. I know you in that way.

Re

(As I have said countless times before, Brahma addresses shiva as the controller of the material manifestation. Correct. Brahma is combination father and mother of the cosmic manifestation, since he destroys it and allows it to manifest again. I accept. Shiva is also Supreme Brahman beyond cosmic manifestation, since he is a transformation of Govinda (Param-brahman) for the performance of the work of destruction. )

Your acceptance of Lord Shiva Supreme Brahman is enough to understand What Krishna says I am Shankara amongst Rudra. Supreme Brahman is one without a second, therefore no matter how much twist you put in your argument, they are one.

SB 4.6.43: My dear lord, you create this cosmic manifestation, maintain it, and annihilate it by expansion of your personality, exactly as a spider creates, maintains and winds up its web.

Re

(He creates manifested things through shivalingam, he maintains through shakti, he annihalates through his dance of destruction. Again, I accept.)

Wonderful and this is what Krishna says in gita, describing brahman( 13.13) and then he says

Undivided, yet appears as if divided in beings; He, the object of knowledge, is the creator, sustainer, and destroyer of (all) beings. (13.17)

Re

(Do not try to limit Supreme Brahman by saying he can't transform himself.)

I have no reason to, if the supreme Brahman is transformed with added ingredient he has become some thing more than before, are there two Brahman now? How can the supreme Brahman who transformed suddenly become less? Brahman is one without a second the wise know him by different names.

Re

( In one sense everything (brahman) is God and his energies. However, we are discussing about God himself, Parabrahman. Milk and curd are one and different, but where does curd come from? Milk. Where does Shiva come from? Krishna. That is the point Brahma makes. As for Rama, Rama is Vishnu-tattva. Shiva is Shiva-tattva. Rama is as opulent as Krishna, but he doesn't display his full opulence in his form as Rama. In contrast, Shiva is not a form of Krishna, he is the divine halo of Krishna. Shiva is very opulent, but He doesn't display full opulence for he is not as opulent as Krishna. As a plenary portion of Krishna, he is limited to that portion.)

Krishna Bhakta will say what you are saying and a Shiva Bhakta will say different.

There is only one supreme tattva.

Re

(If you want me to go through guru-tattva with you, then fine. One can have many siksha gurus. Brahma is formally the disciple of Vishnu (diksha guru), but he has many siksha gurus, such as Lord Shiva.)

No, no, have a look at the point you were making.

Re

(Don;t change the point, do you accept BS 5.43, the specific sentence:

Govinda has allotted Lord Shiva and the devis the authority to rule their respective graded realms.)

SB 4.6/45 O most auspicious lord, you have ordained the heavenly planets, the spiritual Vaikuṇṭha planets and the impersonal Brahman sphere as the respective destinations of the performers of auspicious activities. Similarly, for others, who are miscreants, you have destined different kinds of hells which are horrible and ghastly. Yet sometimes it is found that their destinations are just the opposite. It is very difficult to ascertain the cause of this.

Brahma is contradicting, In Bhagvad he says one thing. Now samhita even if one accept as Brahma puran later day addition, is saying some thing different. As I say I have no problem accepting both, since the lord is being praised, I accept all the statement even the contradictory ones. Every thing is not simply black and white there are things well beyond my imagination, I will reserve my judgment if and when I meet my maker, nothing I have heard from you has changed the way I perceive things, infact our discussion has if any thing cemented my faith even more, that the mukand priya shiva, are but one expect of the same supreme lord.

Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh

Thank you Maadhavji for exposing this guest

<< "mitya acharyas".. false spiritualists, false crusaders of dharma.. not muslims, aids, ebola, atomic bombs, earthquake, typhoons ...) >>

krishna does not use the words mithya aacharyas in gita.

this poor fellow preacher breaks the word mithyaachaar - useless actions - into mithayaa aacharya. and see, what he preaches applies to him right here.

Re

(adhuro ghado chhalakaay, baraabar ne?)

ek dam sachu

Pranam bhai

Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh

((our ancestors who worshiped in those holy land now the ugly domes stands on those desecrated temples and you want me to demonstrate. ))

Re

(••ok.. but where's the guilty to punish now?)

Please why do you insist on me to state the obvious, who else but the decendent of those criminals are hanging on to those ugly domes on top our temples. Since it is a so called place of worship and its follower who are hanging on, the Islam(based on violence) is implicated, we have no axe to grind against any one let alone a religion practices of others if they come in peace and friendship.

Re

( ••so build a temple, do nama, do puja and that land will be santified and will be an holy place)

What you are saying is, if some one enters my house and takes over, I say to him thank you very much, I go and build another one some where else.

yes we like doing nama and puja, and this alien concept comes tell us you are all heathens or kafirs, and I am suppose to keep quiet.

Re

(••but for many has ground.. so, let us see that every religion is very difficult to study and understand and simply let's pretend peace and let us punish crimes)

I do not wish to pretend peace, that is Dhitrastra vision. Do you have any ground? If so let us hear it.

Re

••no.. but it was a converting, i had an idea, then i converted to another. So convertion is there in every religion and it is not in itself a crime)

Yes but you converted that is a lot different from dogma of going out and swell the numbers by any means at disposable, that is evil.

((As I said doing adharma is not our aim, protecting dharma is))

Re

(••so dharma is to punish guilty and to leave alone the innocent.. religion means nothing)

I have no capacity to punish any one nor is that stated goal, protected Dharma is.

Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh

Re

(it is true that brahma addresses shiva as the creator, maintainer and annihalator of the cosmic manifestation.

it is true that brahma addresses Shiva as the Supreme Brahman.)

But you think his addressing is fake or Brahma is lying.

And Prajapati also said the same but that does not matter does it?

Lord Vishnu also declared the one ness of the three, after the Daksha’s sacrifice.

It is true Lord Shiva Praises Lord Vishnu or Brahma or Vice Versa.

But then Lord Krishna says the same in other places, which you brush it off as lila,

This way we can go on and on and on

Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh

Re

(I accept what Brahma says. And as Brahma expands on this point in the Brahma Samhita, there is no difference between Lord Vishnu and Lord Shiva in their original positions, but still Lord Shiva is different from Lord Vishnu. The example is given that the milk in curd is not different from the original milk from which it was made. )

(Yes, I accept what Brahma says and to elaborate:

BS 5.45: Just as milk is transformed into curd by the action of acids, but yet the effect curd is neither same as, nor different from, its cause, viz., milk, so I adore the primeval Lord Govinda of whom the state of Shambhu is a transformation for the performance of the work of destruction.)

(In other words, Govinda is the personality that Brahma refers to who expands to create, maintain and annihalate the cosmic manifestation. The self-realised soul can see the presence of the Lord in everyone, especially the spiritual master. Since Lord Shiva is the spiritual master of the universe, Brahma treats him like God. We are all taught to treat Guru as good as God, since he is the medium. Also, Shiva is the divine halo of the Supreme Lord, so one can understand when Brahma prays to him as the Supreme Lord. This is not say that Brahma has no knowledge of the source of the divine halo, as confirmed in the Brahma Samhita.)

1.You say, you accept what Brahma is saying, but then you try and disqualify it, by quoting from another source, I ask you again if you accept Bhagvad puran as spotless why don’t you accept as it is?

2.supreme Brahman is one without a second, there is nothing beyond that, so tell me where from another ingredient spring from to make this transformation? The verse says they are one but different just as milk and curd are, so what does that prove?

Lord Shiva is always beloved of Uma, just as Krishna is to Radha or Ram is to Sita. You have no problem accepting Ram As Krishna, for although they are one they are different.

3. You forget one thing it is Lord Vishnu who is Spiritual Master of Lord Brahma, so does this mean you are now going to think other way round? I do not think so.

Re

(Now, you answer my question, do you agree with the following statements from Brahma and Shiva respectively?

Quote 1: BS 5.43 - Brahma says: Above Mahesh Dham is Hari-Dhama, and above them ALL is located Krsna's realm of Goloka. I adore the primeval Lord Govinda, who has allotted Lord Shiva and the devis the authority to rule their respective graded realms.

Where is the problem in that, lord shiva also reside in crematorium

Karpur gauram karunaa avataaram,

Sansaar saaram bhujgendra haaram,

Sadaa vasantam hridayaarvinde,

Bhavam Bhavaani sahitam namaami 1

I bow to that camphor-hued, white complexioned

(Lord Shiva), who is Incarnation of compassion,

Who is the very essence of (consciousness; the

Knowing principle) of life (of the embodied soul);

Who wears snakes as garlands, whose eternal abode

is in the heart of the devotee, I bow to Him (Lord

Shiva) and His consort Bhavaani (Uma or Parvati).

Brahma also said this

SB 4.6/45 O most auspicious lord, you have ordained the heavenly planets, the spiritual Vaikun&#803;t&#803;ha planets and the impersonal Brahman sphere as the respective destinations of the performers of auspicious activities. Similarly, for others, who are miscreants, you have destined different kinds of hells which are horrible and ghastly. Yet sometimes it is found that their destinations are just the opposite. It is very difficult to ascertain the cause of this.

Quote 2: SB 4.24.43: Shiva says: Lord Krishna you are also the supreme controller of Rudra.

Get this in prospective he says you are controller of ego which is known as Rudra.

Lord Shiva did not say you are my controller, and even if he said that it would not matter

Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh

Re

(Let us please not demean Sanatana Dharma. If you believe without doubt that Maha Visnu or Krishna is the Supreme Lord, you are true -- since such a belief exists in the Supreme concsiousness alone. In that case, Lord Shiva will be the best aspect of the Supreme Lord. But then if you demean Shiva, you are only demeaning the Supreme Lord by demeaning His best aspect.

Similarly, if I demean Visnu, considering Shiva as the Supreme Lord (which belief also exists in the Supreme concsiousness alone), and then I demean the Supreme Lord.)

Such a realization is worthy of highest praise, for you have realized the essence of supreme who is one without a second. Goswami Tulsidas said some thing similar in the worship of sri Ram. May god bless you, you are a pillar of strength in my own conviction.

Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh

Re

(It is mainly recognised by Gaudiya sampradaya, but that does not mean it is not bona fide. The prayers to Krsna from Brahma were discovered in Kerala by Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu - he is predicted in countless Vedic scriptures as an incarnation of Krishna.)

You do not get the point do you, I said the supreme lord is glorified and that is all that matters.

Re

(I am not rejecting Bhagavat Purana - where do you get that idea from?)

You simply have to read your statements, you had said you accept what Shiva and Brahma says more than what Prajapati worship. Therefore I quoted to you what Brahma had said SB 4.6/45. and that is why you resorted to Brahma Samhita. In other words you did not like what you read in Bhagvat puran what Brahma is saying

Now you are saying you agree to part of what Brahma says. Let me quote this again and see if you agree or not.

SB 4.6.42: Lord Brahm&#257; said: My dear Lord &#346;iva, I know that you are the controller of the entire material manifestation, the combination father and mother of the cosmic manifestation, and the Supreme Brahman beyond the cosmic manifestation as well. I know you in that way.

SB 4.6.43: My dear lord, you create this cosmic manifestation, maintain it, and annihilate it by expansion of your personality, exactly as a spider creates, maintains and winds up its web.

You have a knack of changing the flow of discussion to suit you, let me know if you agree to above?

Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh

Re

(--is it an excuse that to be sure that i am guilty you have to demonstrate that i personally have stolen your property?)

Well you personally is not standing accused, one has only need to open the eyes and see the evidence of course the choice is your to ignore, go to mathura, go to Kasi go to ayodiya the evidence is staring in my face, our ancestors who worshiped in those holy land now the ugly domes stands on those desecrated temples and you want me to demonstrate.

(--that's a religious site... dharma is a religion.. the purpose of a religion is not to have land but to go back to god)

And while we are waiting to go back we need the land conducive to religious practice and lot those place of worship remains in the hand of criminal’s children that is one of the reason why we are having this discussion.

Re

(--many people think that gita is an incitation to war and that the god of hindus (krsna/vishnu) is one who wants fights between humans. Are they authorized to think that everyone who studies or practices gita is a potential criminal? then to force him to go out from some land?)

So argument has no ground, first we do not go around forcing Gita down the peoples throat, we have not invaded others land and desecrated their place of worship, we don’t kill people in the name of Gita or Krishna and you know your self philosophically nothing can equal Gita.

((They came to convert us, that is still their aim))

Re

(--i am a converted "mleccha")

Did any one force you or induce you by any unfair means?

Re

(--so punish individuals if they are criminals... to trying peacefully to convert to a religion is not a crime)

What is peaceful about Islam and their methods? and Xians offering inducement or any dirty trick to swell their numbers, would you remain quite if some one was paddling drugs to innocent children, peacefully?

Re

(--if you are doing adharma, injustice for even an innocent, you are not protecting dharma and you are making vedic land as asura land. An asura goes, another asura comes)

As I said doing adharma is not our aim, protecting dharma is. Vedic land is being over run by asuras that is my point, what are you doing about it?

((I have no desire to abandon my dharma.))

Re

(--so let us behave in a dharmic way, or dharma will abandone us)

That is true, and let us speak the truth, satyaMe Vijayte.

Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh

Re

(--it is right to defend from stealing,)

So do not give me any if and buts.

(xxxIf there's i will give... where's the problem?)

You sound more and more like Drishrastra, true to his nature he remained blind to reality, and refused to believe his son was wrong even though he new the facts.

((Why do you put your head in the sand?))

Re

(xxxxwich sand? it is justice... demonstrate your property and if i have something that was yours i am guilty)

Drishrastra made same kind of excuses.

((To hang on to injustices is a fault and a crime.))

Re

(xxxthe important thing is to worship the lord, not the attachments to a land. In the next life we will take birth in another place, maybe the one that now we are fighting)

Another one of his excuse, don’t you see we are discussing hanging on to injustices.

Re

(xxxa religion does not commit crimes, persons are committing crimes.. so who is criminal has to be put in jail, religion is irrelevant)

I will concede religion in itself does not commit crime but the dogmas contained in it are either right or wrong, and any religion or orgnisation would be judged by the example in front of us, what I see is violence and more violence. Behind a criminal you have a cause.

So to stopping a criminal is one thing but it is also prudent to find the cause of it.

Re

(xxxread better: "in every religion, taken out of context, you will find socially dangerous statements"... taken out of context)

True again, if it was out of context. They came to convert us, that is still their aim, huge amount of money is pouring in to convert us Kafir or Heathens.

((when does defending dharma become adharma?))

Re

(xxxwhen you believe that for defending dharma you have to start a religion's war. Simply punish the guilty)

let me make clear to you we have no intention to start any war, you say punish the guilty, and who are they? Are they individuals or are they organized groups with agenda to convert, not by fair means but any which way they can. All we want to do is protect.

((Look around how peaceful followers of Islam all over the world are?))

Re

(xxxxagain this adharmic fact of treating people as groups.. even if one religion is 99,9999% followed by criminals, if you bother the 0.0001% who is honest you do a great sin, offence, adharma)

Very noble of you, yes I will be concerned for any innocent as well as a criminal, but should that stop me being concerned for people of vedic land what ever little that is left of it.

re

(xxxi was mercyful with you... but if you desire to hear what i think: you are proposing to put away the dharma to defend it. Who is aware of the karma is a saint, who do not cares is a poor man, who think that defending religion means to be less careful of possible mistakes and sins is an asura)

Thanks for your mercy, I have no desire to abandon my dharma.

Re

(gita says that the worst thing in the world are "mitya acharyas".. false spiritualists, false crusaders of dharma.. not muslims, aids, ebola, atomic bombs, earthquake, typhoons ...)

So you are accusing me of MithyAchar.

Thank you

Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh

Re

(From Brahma Samhita (which is neither meant to glorify Vishnu or glorify Shiva - it is neutral), here is the quote which confirms it all)

Well you would say that, and why not it is Samhita mainly recognized by Godiya sampradaya and I have absolutely no problem with that or the contents in it.

The supreme Lord is glorified and that is all that matters but I refuse to be like you are, now resorting to evidence from samhita which proves to me that you are rejecting the Bhagvat puran which you boldly declared to be spotless.

Re

(BS 5.43: Lowest of all is located Devi-dhama [mundane world], next above it is Mahesh-dhama [abode of Mahesh]; above Mahesh-dhama is placed Hari-dhama [abode of Hari] and above them all is located Kr&#803;s&#803;n&#803;a's own realm named Goloka. I adore the primeval Lord Govinda, who has allotted their respective authorities to the rulers of those graded realms.)

All glories to Govinda.

Re

(Now, one can argue that Shiva Purana glorifies Shiva's abode as supreme, and Bhagavat Purana is 'mode of goodness' and so it glorifies Krsna. But Brahma Purana (passion) is not more inclined to either Krishna or Shiva. Yet still it is written that Krsna's abode is higher than Mahesh Dhama. Take from that what you will... )

Evidence you provide is from Brahma Samhita which you are disguising as Brahma puran,

Are you serious?

The same Brahma has declared in Bhagvat puran SB 4.6/45 which you have rejected, in fact you have rejected every thing, so have it your way.

Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh

(("Original, to me suggest beginning, supreme is eternal indivisible"))

Re

(That's what you can't understand. It is hard for us to understand Supreme Brahman.)

And I am non the wiser by your statement.

Re

( He is eternal, Shiva is eternal, all the souls are eternal, yet He is original. Krishna is original.)

Well a Ram Bhakta will contest that, a Shiva Bhakta will do the same, supreme Brahman is one without a second, he/she has thousand of forms and names and each one of them is eternally supreme sprit.

"Vishnu puran 5.33.46

Yo hariH sa ZivaH sakSad yaH zivaH sa svayamM hariH

Ye tayor bhedamAti stahan narakAya bhave nnaraH

Whoever is Lord Hari, He Himself is Lord Shiva indeed.

Any human being mistake both the lord to be different, he/she surely go to hell"

Re

(They are non-different because they both posess the six opulences.)

You are giving your own interpretation read what it says hari is siva and siva is hari if you think they are different(bhedamti)----

Re

(Just like milk and curd are made of the same thing. Still, curd cannot replace milk (Brahma Samhita).

Here again you are bringing your own interpretation, there is no verse saying curd can not replace milk.

As to how the one supreme Brahman can transform in to another and become some thing else is beyond me.

As far as my understanding goes the supreme Brahman is being described here as part of the same coin differentiated by the two different expect.

Re

(Shiva is the ruler of the universe (it is after all material), and we are all undifferentiated Brahman. Our souls are the same quality as Krishna - just not the same quantity.)

You said you accept what Brahma say,

here is the full verse

SB 4.6.42: Lord Brahma said: My dear Lord Siva, I know that you are the controller of the entire material manifestation, the combination father and mother of the cosmic manifestation, and the Supreme Brahman beyond the cosmic manifestation as well. I know you in that way.

SB 4.6.43: My dear lord, you create this cosmic manifestation, maintain it, and annihilate it by expansion of your personality, exactly as a spider creates, maintains and winds up its web.

"4.7/50-54 The lord said: The supreme cause of the universe, I am also Brahma (the creator) and Lord Shiva (the destroyer of the universe). I am the self, the lord and the witness, self effulgent and unqualified. Embracing my own Maya, consisting of the three gunas, it is I who create, protect and destroy the universe have assumed names appropriate to my functions, O Brahmana! It is in such a Brahman, the supreme sprit, who is one without a second, that the ignorant fool views Brahma, Rudra and other beings as distinct entities. Just as a man never conceives his own head, hands and other limbs as belonging to anyone else, even so he who is devoted to me does not regard his fellow creatures as distant from himself.

He who sees no difference between Us three (Brahma, Rudra and Myself)-who are identical in essence and the very selves of all living beings-attains peace, O Daksa.

Please note, the supreme sprit, who is one without a second----."

Re

1) He assumes names according to his functions.

2) He is equal to Brahma and Rudra in the sense that his function in the material manifestation is of the same importance as Brahma and Rudra.

Read better O Brahmana! It is in such a Brahman, the supreme sprit, who is one without a second, that the ignorant fool views Brahma, Rudra and other beings as distinct entities.

Re

(Krishna is Shiva's Supreme Lord. (backed up by Srimad Bhagavatam)

And the same Bhagvat says Lord Shiva is supreme Brahman, The prajapati says so, Lord Brahma says so and Lord Vishnu says we are the same

You said Bhagvat is spotless (amala) yet you reject what prajapati says in it you twist what Lord Vishnu says, and I guess reject what Lord Brahma says also.

Re

(Shiva is not Krishna's Supreme Lord. (backed up by Bhagavad Gita, Brahma Samhita, Srimad Bhagavatam, the Narayana Upanishad)

I have not said anywhere Shiva is Krishna’s supreme Lord nor have I said Krishna is Shiva’s. all along I have maintain these are same going by different name and function.

Bhagvat gita confirms this Brahma samhita also and Bhagvatam I have provided many verses. I do not have Narayana Upanishad,

We have so far debated mainly on Gita and Bhagvat, since you do not even except the evidence from it there is no point me bringing the purans and Mahabharata epic which actually extol lord Shiva in his full glory.

Re

( Shiva comes from heavenly planets. Shivaloka is a heavenly planet - the border between material and spiritual - Shiva-tattva. He is not in the Spiritual planets.)

SB 4.6/45 O most auspicious lord, you have ordained the heavenly planets, the spiritual Vaikuntha planets and the impersonal Brahman sphere as the respective destinations of the performers of auspicious activities. Similarly, for others, who are miscreants, you have destined different kinds of hells which are horrible and ghastly. Yet sometimes it is found that their destinations are just the opposite. It is very difficult to ascertain the cause of this.

Jai Shree Krishna.

Jai Ganesh

Re

(--it is right to defend from stealing,)

So do not give me any if and buts.

Re

(if the ancient property can be demonstrated and it is practical to relocate the modern mosque there's no problem. )

Why do you put your head in the sand?

Re

(If it is more practical and peaceful to build the hindu temple in a close place it is even better. These injustices have been done by people dead from centuries, modern Muslims have no faults)

To hang on to injustices is a fault and a crime.

Re

(here we have a religion who thinks us Hindus are kafirs

--and for vedic scriptures non hindus are "mlecchas"... every religion has bad names for not religious people or people belonging to something else)

With a big difference, Hindus did not commit atrocities in the name of religion but it is known fact Islam has done in it in the past and are doing it now, what do you expect of a religion based on violence.

Re

(--simply persecute criminals... in every religion, taken out of context, you will find socially dangerous statements. So that's not our business.. religions does not matter, crime matters)

I am sorry I strongly object, the dharma I follow does not enjoy me to kill anyone or force anyone to take up my dharma, I would not force Dharma on my family let alone a non believer.

As for crime, you have no concept of justice, you ask the victim to exercise restraint and the criminals and their benefactor’s appeasement, with friends like you who needs enemies.

((how do you investigate those criminals? Any suggestion.))

Re

(--i am not a policeman, i know only that if you make adharma to defend dharma the result will not be bharata varsa, but something else.. )

I ask for your suggestion, instead you assume the worse, any way when does defending dharma become adharma?

((so let us hear from all the muslims that Muhammad was wrong using force. ))

Re

(--what's the advantage? if you are peaceful, you could have millions of demons in your dinasty or in your religion and it is not my business)

Very simple if you ask me if Kansa or Ravan was criminal my answer would be very simple yes. And if you(I believe you are not a Muslim) can not give me a simple answer to my question, I have no hope in hell for a Muslim to admit their Muhammad used force to spread Islam

Re

(--not my business, not a problem of peace or security... if you have a peaceful behaviour you can follow anything)

Very diplomatic answer, god bless you

Look around how peaceful followers of Islam all over the world are?

((a Hindu aware of consequence of karma is very passive.))

Re

(--why?)

Work it out you are good at that.

Jai Shree Krishna