Ram and Krishna were never devotees of Siva

[Guest guest]

Vaishnavism is very rich in literature. It is a complete system. The frequent contact with God, the exposition of moksha morga by Krishna in Bhagavadgita, the abundancy of philosophy embedded in the system makes it a completely independent system in itself even without depending upon Vedas and Upanishads for everything.

 

On the other hand Saivism is completely devoid of any literature. Whatever little literature is unusable because it does not show Siva in good light. In Siva puranas, all the three - Siva, Shakti, Ganesh - are described to have achieved their energy from other Gods - they did not possess it by themselves. The name 'mahadev' which saivites frequently and proudly use for Siva does not have a good story behind it. Siva finds his energy insufficient and gets energy from all the devatas to kill tripurasuras thereby becoming maha dev. Durga gets her shakti from all other devatas after they decide to give her one weapon each to kill mahisha. Ganesh is a god purely by the virtue of a boon from Siva rather than anything else - and he gets this out of fatherly affection rather than by penance. Also what devotion can be gained out of stories like burning Manmadha, Sati sahagaman, Daksha Yagna ?? None of these stories have any spiritual significance and are meant only to show superiority of Siva rather than teach Bhakti and Mukti to the devotee. This is the reason why none of the Siva puranas have ever been translated properly into english. Only Bhagavatam and Vishnu Purana among the 18 puranas have been translated into english apart from Ramayan and Mahabharata. Westerners did not bother to translate even one of the Siva puranas into English. Not having any literature, the only way Saivism could survive was by showing each and every avatar of Vishnu to be a devotee of Siva or some such sort.

 

When Narsingh Avatar appeared, they claimed that Narsingh became so arrogant and uncontrollable after killing Hiranya Kasipa that he would have destroyed the whole world. Siva then fights with and subdues narsingh. This is described in Siva puranas. Parasurama was anyway a devotee of Siva. When Ram appeared, it looked like devotion to him might overtake that of Siva. Saivites promptly declared him to a staunch devotee of Siva. In Valmiki Ramayan, there is not a single instance of Ram praying to Siva - he is shown to be a devotee of Vishnu who is shown to be the kuladaivam of Ikshwakus. It is only in the vernacular ramayans that Ram was conveniently shown to be a devotee of Siva. Vaishnavites replied back by making Siva a staunch devotee of Ram in Ram Charita Manas. Then came Krishna the complete manifestation of God. The reason why Krishna does penance of Siva in Mahabharata is the most ridiculous - he does penance for Siva's blessings in order to get Sons. Atleast doing penance to get Sudershan seems to be more plausible - Vishnu cannot be so weak that he requires Siva's blessings to get sons. There is every posibility that Saivites got this particular episode inserted into Mahabharata. Vaishnavites then broke away from Mahabharat and got their own version called Bhagavatam. In order to prevent further attacks by Saivites, as a counter attack, they inserted the episode of war between Krishna and Siva in which Krishna wins in Bhagavatam. This prevented Saivites from ever showing Krishna as devotee of Siva - otherwise we would have had many krishna-lingeswara temples by now. I do not think that Krishna ever prayed to Siva for sons and I do not think that Krishna ever won a war with Siva.

 

Niether Rama nor Krishna were devotees of Siva - it is purely a saivite concotion.

 

Tirupati, Gaya, Haridwar, Mathura, Ayodhya, puri, Dwaraka, Pandhapur, Udipi, Guruvayoor, SriRangam, Ahobilam, Bhadrachalam, Tiruvananthapuram, nathdwara, asvakrantha, Badrinath, KuluManali, Kolhapur, Karauli ->

- None of these great Vaishnavite centers have any legends that show Siva as a devotee of Vishnu or inferior to Vishnu. Most of the legends do not even mention Siva and have nothing to do with Siva at all. Vaishnavites are simply not bothered about Siva.

 

Let us take Siva temples -

 

Kashi - Siva beheads Brahma, goes to vaikuntha, kills Vishnu's attendant, demands and takes all of the blood Vishnu and then goes to Kasi.

 

Rameswaram - Ram(Vishnu) is a devotee of Siva. There are hundreds of temples across India which claim to have lingas worshipped by Ram. God only knows when Ram worshipped so many lingas.

 

Kedarnath - Siva worshipped by Nar/narayan, Badrinath is just a witness diety to Kedarnath

 

Srisailam - Worshipped by ram, has separate lings close to Garbagriha which are claimed to have been worshipped by Ram.

 

These are just examples. If you go on - more than 50% of the Shiva kshetras claim to have legends that show Vishnu as inferior to or as a devotee of ram.

 

The four day durga puja in Bengal is based on Ram. It is said that Ram got the blessings of Durga during those four days. Maharashtra has Ganesh temples which claim to have Ganesh murtis worshipped by Vishnu and the oldest ganesh temple in Maharashtra is not more than 200 years old - God help them.

 

Today Saivism is an ancillary system to Vaishnavism and nothing more.

[Guest guest]

Yes, Shiva is known to be living amongst the Ganas, ghosts, etc applying ash all over his body. He has been portrayed as someone who does not have any power of his own but of his consort.In one of the languages in India he is described as "Pithan" meaning crazy. His abode is described as more or less similar to that of a cremation ground. Naturally no system ever would have existed but the last of any mortal body get altered at a similar place for good so peace prvails.

 

Having said that we go on to pray two human beings one of which killed a non-enemy hiding behind trees and the other goes about lying all his life, fomenting problems to meet his power hunger(blame it on mother - see below), lolling about women to be portrayed by lesser beings as great. Mind that both were of flesh and blood and died too. Vishnu always had an agenda, else probably He would not have existed(!?), to take different Avatars to proscribe to people - whether by stories dished out or not - that good always prevail over evil.

 

I think we are heading in the right direction in trying to esatblish which system is best as rightly described in one of the great yarns of yesteryears and destroying our own belief - which is our own life. Go ahead but we will survive with all our fallacies. As described in the myth great many years ago mother Earth wanted to have Her sons play a power game that in the process she wanted to reduce her load. We were delivered with manipulators and crooks to get it done. History repeats time and again. Let us play the same power game albeit in a different way.

 

Oh No, I have committed a sin of deprecating our own Gods. Let Him/Her - whichever form He/She chooses to take - forgive me for that. Prayers to Sishubala(!?!) - his part was not played as an athiest in the concoction of life gone but you all know what happened. We have eveolved over that and we accept today all athiests and non-believers within our fold and strictures but we cannot accept what or who someone prays as his or her form of belief and goes about establishing our own supremacy of what we believe as to be the Mantra of life for everybody else. Instead of changing the bad taste of the divide that our previous generations had left with us we are concentrating on futhering their causes.

 

Most of what is being quoted in all these letters are what have been handed down generations. We were never allowed to ask questions and if any came out our mouth it would have been be glared down.The most acceptable reason for that would have been that they themselves did not know the answers to our questions or they were terrified of something. If one were to be terrified of God then we cannot call God as the benefator - poor Sishubala met with the wrath of a human being. After all we are all His/Her creations and he had to put up with all nonsense, if any, that we dish out - poor God. I accept that I was not a witness to what had been said in hand downs of the past and if I had ever been I do not remember any of it.I do not believe in hand downs but in Him/Her only. So you decide.

 

[Guest guest]

"Ram and Krishna were never devotees of Siva "

 

it's wrong.... krsna/rama is devotee of his devotees

 

[Guest guest]

and the other goes about lying all his life, fomenting problems to meet his power hunger(blame it on mother - see below), lolling about women to be portrayed by lesser beings as great. >>

 

This is the favorite way of shavists to attatck Vaishnavism - to claim that Ram and Krishna are mortals. They are no different from Europeans who claim that Ram and Krishna have been diefied mortal heroes. The reason why Saivites claim that Ram and Krishna are devotees of Shiva is to claim that they are ordinary mortal devotees of Shiva.

 

My dear fellow - I will tell you onething.

 

The so called hindusim which you are part of is still alive today only because of Gita. The description of God in Vedas and Upanishads is so complex that hardly very few understand the content. And puranas other than Ramayan and Mahabharat are useless becasue of their multiplicty - do you know that there are two stories of Ganesha's birth, 3 different stories of the killing of Mahishasura etc. Puranas are full of contradictions. Apart from Ramayan and Mahabharat, none of these puranas are useful.

 

And even Ramayan and Mahabharat could not have saved the day for Hindusim if not for Gita. You must be knowing that Hinduism has already been conquered thoroughly by both Budhism and Jainism. If at all Hindusim bounced back, it was purely because the Bhakti movement, 80% of which was based on Gita and Krishna. So if you are questioning the godhood of Krishna there are chances that you are shaking your very foundations.

 

I recently read about a professor( I dont remember the name) who is supposed to have made a scholarly study of mahabharata, who claimed that 75% of the verses in mahabharata were later inserted and were not part of the original mahabharata. He neatly divided the verses of mahabharata into four groups and claimed that these 4 groups were developed at different times - he claims to have deduced this from the language content in them. He also claims that Gita was not recited by krishna but was developed later by someone called Shautis.

 

But do you know what the most surprising thing was in his analysis ??

 

The author concluded that even though only 25% of the verses were belonging to the original mahabharata, based on just these 25% verses, he concluded that Krishna had so many personalities to him - a great philosopher, exceptional thinker, phenomenal warrior, great king ....

- he had so many attributes to him - that the author finally concluded that Krishna is fit enough to be considered as an incarnation of God ! And this is the author who claims that Gita was not recited by Krishna !

 

Therefore my dear - before blindly dismissing Krishna as an ordinary mortal - go to some guru, read scriptures and do some soul searching of yourself and then come up with an answer for yourself. Dont blindly re-iterate what the Europeans say - they do so because they have their religion to defend.

 

 

 

 

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

 

 

It says in Valmini Ramayana that Lord Ramachandra worshipped Lord Shiva to gain permission from Lord Shiva, to KIll His [Lord Shiva] Own devotee! Sounds very dangerous to be devotee of Lord Shiva doesn't it? Not much in it! So this is really a baseless claim.

[Guest guest]

how can u people ever think like this.....i just have one statement to make....u are not a true hindu.....no matter what ever explanations u come with until and unless u understand the absolute truth that shiva and vishnu are one (as told by ragavandra himself) ur spiritual life is not going to get completed.....any way let the almighty bless u....

[Guest guest]

how can u people ever think like this.....i just have one statement to make....u are not a true hindu.....no matter what ever explanations u come with until and unless u understand the absolute truth that shiva and vishnu are one (as told by ragavandra himself) ur spiritual life is not going to get completed.....any way let the almighty bless u.... >>>

 

My dear guest --

 

Showing that Vishnu is inferior to Shiva, Durga and Ganesh at every possible opportunity - as per you, is this what you mean when you say Vishnu and Siva are one and the same ??

 

 

[Guest guest]

In Valmiki Ramayana no where it is said that Lord Ram worshipped Shiva to Kill Ravana. these shaivites don't have anything to prove that Rudra deva is the Supreme. for the Vedas say 'Narayana param brahmah' and 'Narayana' cannot denote any other person but the Supreme Purusha Narayana and this is clear according to Sanskrit Grammar which makes the word 'Narayana' a rudi.

Also in shatapatha brahmanah, Rudra is shown to have taken birth from Brahma deva and Usha and it is said that he cried for he was not cleansed of sins. this shows that Rudradeva is a Jivatma whose birth is determined by Karma for he was not devoid of sins during his birth.

 

thus the Supreme Purusha is none but Narayana.

 

the shaivites have no such vakyas from the Vedas to show that Narayana has a normal birth like a Jivatma. hence to try keep the masses' faith in shaivism they talk such rubbish and show them to be part of their puranas which are tamasa puranas and are found to go against the tenets of the vedas.

 

thus Vaishnav Dharma is the Parama dharma, Narayana is the Parama Purusha and shaivism is nothing but Parama Asatya.

[Guest guest]

I prefer to hear the Vedic conclusions from the author of the Vedas, Srila Vyasadeva Himself. He makes it perfectly clear in the Bhagavad~gita and Srimad Bhagavatam that... Krsnas tu bhagavan svayam... Krsna is the source of all incarnations and all energies including Lord Siva. Lord Siva mentions in His own commentary on the gita (when he incarnates as Sankaracarya) that Krsna/Visnu is the supreme.

 

[Guest guest]

Raghavendra never told that Shiva and Narayana are the same (ie) they both are Brahman of the same Supreme qualities. there cannot be two Paramatmans and Shiva cannot be an avatar of Narayana as he does not have the attributes of an avatar of Narayana.

infact Raghavendra had upheld the Paratva of Vishnu by stating that only Vishnu is Brahman and no other deity is equal to or greater than Vishnu.

[maadhav 0]

if you read ramayana,

rama says that if one worships him without worshippign siva, it is useless.

 

krishna in gita says: rudrANAm, shankarara cha sasmi.

 

 

[Ganeshprasad 0]

Jai Ganesh

 

Pranam madhavji

 

Kem che ?

 

aa jagdo kaire matse? apna gujrat ma avo jagdo kadi sambarvama nathi aviyo.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

[BinduMadhav 0]

[[[[[[it says in Valmini Ramayana that Lord Ramachandra worshipped Lord Shiva to gain permission from Lord Shiva, to KIll His [Lord Shiva] Own devotee! Sounds very dangerous to be devotee of Lord Shiva doesn't it? Not much in it! So this is really a baseless claim. ]]]]]

 

I have studied Valmiki Ramayan and no where does Valmikiji says Lord Rama prayed to Siva.

 

By why do you say it is dangerous to be a devotee of Siva? Although Siva is a great Vaishnav himself, I can quote stories of where Lord Vishnu protected His devotees by destroying their enemies. Does this mean that Lord Narayana is dangerous too?

 

Jai Ramji Ki

Jai Radhe Shyam Ki

[Guest guest]

SARVAM YE TATH BRAHMA

[Guest guest]

WHY THE HELL DOES IT MATTER IF THEY WERE OR WERE NOT!!! WHAT IS THE BLOODY POINT OF THIS STUPID TOPIC? TO CREATE A DIVISION AMONGST HINDUS?!? JUST GET OVER IT...there are Vaishnavs and Shaivas and we must respect each other!

 

Enough said.

[barney 0]

http://www.gita-society.com/temple/HinduPuranas16.htm#shiva

 

LORD SHIVA PREPARES FOR THE BATTLE

GANAS THRONG MANDAR MOUNTAIN

 

Pulastya says- "When Lord Shiva became aware of Andhak's imminent attack, he requested Nandi to summon all the Ganas who were more than 700 crores in number. Some of the prominent Ganas like Pashupat, Kalmukh, Mahavrati, Digambar, Maini, Mahapashupat and Vrishabhdhwaj arrived at Mandar Mountain to help Lord Shiva at the request of Nandi.

 

On seeing the valiant Gana- Pashupat, Lord Shiva embraced him, which surprised all the other Ganas. They were amazed at the special honor given to him. Lord Shiva realised their astonishment and said- "Although all of you have great devotion towards me but in your ignorance, you have shown disrespect towards Lord Vishnu. All of you except Pashupat don't realise that both of us (Lord Shiva and Vishnu) are inseparable and there is no difference between us. Pashupat is aware of this and hence he has been accorded the highest honor." Having said this, Lord Shiva revealed his majestic form of Sadashiva to the Ganas. The Ganas were bewildered on seeing the whole universe existing within Sadashiva. Lord Sadashiva then transformed his appearance into that of Lord Vishnu. The Ganas also viewed the forms of deities like Indra, Surya and Lord Brahma etc. in him. They were now convinced that both Lord Shiva and Lord Vishnu were the same. The dawning of this realisation liberated them from their ignorance. Lord Shiva blessed the Ganas and embraced them. All the Ganas then took their position all around Mandar Mountain and readied themselves for the forthcoming attack"

[Guest guest]

These are guys crazy of vaishnavism. There is no agenda of vaishnavites vs. Shaivites.

 

If a Krishna, Rama, Sai Baba, or great spiritual role models consider shiva as the ultimate, it does not mean there is a shaivite agenda to degrade the vaishnavas. Shaivism does exist, but there is no agenda between shaivites and viashnavites.

 

I agree there is an agenda between Vaishnavites vs. Hindus.

 

Vaishnavism should only stay at the door step of the showcase of indian spirituality. Their ordeals, rituals are good at pulling crowds providing the hope of exposing one to indian vedic teachings.

 

Once inside the showcase, these crazy Vaishnavism should be left were you leave your slippers. Spirituality is a personal and universal experience. There are no two sides waging a battle. It's personal and full of the spiritual you.

[Guest guest]

Lord Shiva is the first Jagadguru . Shambo incarnated as Sri Vishnuswami . The Sampradaya started by Sri Vishnuswami is called Rudra Sampradaya. In Rudra sampradaya there is nowhere mentioned that Lord Shiva is supreme. Instead it is mentioned the Lord Shiva is the first Jagadguru and foremost devotee of all vaishnavas.

 

So let us stop the dog & cat fight and accept Lord Vishnu / Lord Narashima as Supreme.

 

OM NAMAH SHIVAYA

OM NAMO BAGHAVATHE VASUDEVAYA

 

[Guest guest]

"""""""""Also in shatapatha brahmanah, Rudra is shown to have taken birth from Brahma deva and Usha and it is said that he cried for he was not cleansed of sins.""""""""""""

 

 

This post was possibly removed. I have reposted it.

 

Shiva is Brahma. He is Usha and He is also the product of their union. He is Prajapati and also Brahmanaspati.Shiva Rudra is Benign-Shivo. He is EKO and HE is Visva Rupa. He saw the birth of Hirayanagarbha and is also all Devas.

 

 

 

RV10.061.05 (Rudra), the benefactor of man, whose eager, virile energy was developed, drew it back when disseminated (for the generation of offfspring); again the irresistible (Rudra) concentrates (the energy) which was communicated to his maiden daughter.

 

 

RV 10.061.06 When the deed was done in mid-heaven in the proximity of the father working his will, and the daughter coming together, they let the seed fall slightly; it was poured upon the high place of sacrifice.

 

RV 10.061.07 When the father united with the daughter, then associating with the earth, he sprinkled it with the effusion; then the thoughtful gods begot Brahma; they fabricated the lord of the hearth (of sacrifice); the defender of sacred rites

 

 

 

So, Shyam guest's repeated lies that Rudra took birth from Brahma, is shown to be a lie from Rig Veda. I agree to SM wholeheartedly.

 

[Guest guest]

"""""""""The so called hindusim which you are part of is still alive today only because of Gita. The description of God in Vedas and Upanishads is so complex that hardly very few understand the content.""""""""""""''

 

And on what Gita is standing? Anything of importance in Gita is from one or another upanishad.

 

This is called destroying the root to save the tree.

[Guest guest]

It is Valmiki and NOT Valmini Ramayana. Just because you do not agree with something, you must not mock it.

 

Haribol

[samenewguy 0]

Both Rama and Krishna prayed to Lord Shiva in Ramayana and Mahabharata respectively. (Interestingly, the two epics have different authors, and the author of the latter, Sri Ved Vyas, according to Vaishnavites themselves, has also transcribed the Vedas, Puranas, Mahabharata, Srimad Bhagvatam)

In Mahabharata (again by Ved Vyasa), while Bhishma is able to tell Yudhisthira the 1000 names of Lord Vishnu, he is not qualified to do so for Lord Shiva. Only Krishna is able to tell Yudhisthira the 1000 names of Lord Shiva.

In Mahabharata, when Lord Shiva appears before Ashvatthama to answer his prayers, He tells Ashvatthama that He had been protecting the Pandavas at Kurukshtra and so nobody was able to harm them. (But one should also remember that Krishna's cunning is instrumental is providing this safety to the Pandavas.) When aided by Lord Shiva, Ashvatthama murders the Pandavas' sons.

As goes the Gita, Krishna there represents the Brahman (because He is the most Godly among all men gathered on the battlefield, and especially Godly to Arjuna).

The Sudarshan Chakra of Lord Vishnu, his major weapon, was gifted to him by Lord Shiva.

I think it is fair to assume that in Hindu mythology, Lord Shiva is portrayed as the All Powerful (and also All Creative because he is considered the Lord of Arts and Sciences) and Lord Vishnu as the All Cunning, i.e. smart in behavioral matters (neither in bad sense). So, instead of fighting over who is greater, Hindus should accept what the two Gods have to offer and pray to both. In reality you need both faculties to run your life, just as both Gods are needed to run the spiritual sky (irrespective of what the bigots have to say).

In reality, both forms of God are a means to an end.

[Satyam Shivam 0]

In fact,you are afraid.Afraid because Rama`s devotion the Lord Siva,which is documented in the Padma Purana,or Shiva gita,doesnt fit with your narrow understanding of Lord Siva.Not understanding,and not having read fully the actual scriptures of Lord Siva,and the conversation in the Siva Gita between Lord Rama and Lord Siva,you have only an ignorant view of Siva,and so have to try to discredit other sources of knowledge as `manufactured`.This is simply because they don`t fit with your narrow doctrine.But you can`t hide from the truth.It will keep haunting you,even if you try to hide it,burn scriptures you don`t like,or pretend it is fictitious.

[hanumanta 0]

Jaya Guru Datta

 

There is no greater devotee of Lord Shiva than Lord Vishnu. There is no greater devotee of Lord Vishnu than Lord Shiva.

 

Sri Guru Datta

[anisha_astrologer 0]

ram and Krishna were human incarnation of Vishnu so it is highly likely that they worshipped other gods as well. it shows their humility not their inferiority. if some sects try to exploit these events in their favour, it is entirely their own problem. why drag gods in this. to think about the welfare of humanity is better than fighting it out to establish who is a greater god.