Worship of Siva versus Worship of Lord Vishnu

[BinduMadhav 0]

Trust me, Atanu, you have not hurt my feelings at all.

 

{You are hurt by my calling you and your Guru poor?}

 

Did I say I am hurt? I suggested to you that you leave my Guru out of the picture. You know nothing about me or my Guru. So why would you want to speculate?

 

What you can speculate about is God. We and all others are doing it on this forum. That is because God does not so easily get 'hurt'! Man has been speculating about God since Satya Yuga. When Lord Krishna said, "I am God, worship Me", all speculation ceased. But speculation about the nature of Lord Krishna itself does not need to stop.

 

From your posts, it seems that you have a long way to go before you answer questions in a straight-forward manner.

 

Again, my logic is this:

 

1. Lord Krishna says that in order to achieve Moksha, we have to worship Him, not others.

 

2. We all want to achieve Moksha. You too, right? So why do we want to worship any other god?

 

I will provide an answer for YOU. The only saving grace for you is a refuge in Advaita philosophy. According to Advaita philosophy, there is no difference between Lord Hari and any demigod like Siva. "Sarvadeva Namaskarah Keshavam Pratigacchati".

 

Why could you not provide a simple answer? Why did you not tell me that this is not a "My daddy is bigger than yours" kind of argument, but that you think my 'dad' is the same as yours?

 

 

 

[BinduMadhav 0]

{So does your (advaitic) religion preach that Love for God is the ultimate goal of live? }

 

Could this be true? That the Advaita school teaches that Love for God is the ultimate goal of life?

 

Hmmm. If this is so, I think Advaitic people cannot be so bad. Now, if only all Advaitic people accept Lord Krishna as the Supreme Lord, then better and better.

[Guest guest]

Bindu how old are you, your arguments are like a 14 year old's.

 

"1. Lord Krishna says that in order to achieve Moksha, we have to worship Him, not others."

 

This is one path Bindu, but where does Lord Krishna states this is the only path to Moksha ? You are becomming like a Christian Missionary. When Krishna said that he meant dont follow other human forms, only Krishna took the Human form. Maheswara is not a human form.

 

 

We appreciate your love and devotion to Krishna, but dont show any animosity to others belief, Krishna does not approve that. Anyway we are all arguing based on Vedas and Bagavatham

of our religion. But you should understand some of these scripts have be formated to fit a perticualar subsets of the hindus like Vaishnavites and Saivites. Unless we find the original scripts. For example does anyone know where about is the original Mahabharata which Sage Viassa compiled, people only have copies written by others, So how do we know that the Bagavat Githa compiled by Sage Viassa is exactly same as a Bagavat Githa i buy from the book store ?

 

How would you feel if others were to turn and redicule what your beliefs are, so be curtious to others.

 

Good Luck!

 

[Guest guest]

{So does your (advaitic) religion preach that Love for God is the ultimate goal of live? }

 

Could this be true? That the Advaita school teaches that Love for God is the ultimate goal of life?

 

So, do they or not?

[Guest guest]

 

You are truly poor.

 

And mind you I am not calling you demented fool like you called another debater in another thread.

 

Bhagavatam

 

31. O Lord Girisa, your effulgence is transcendental to the material modes of goodness, passion and ignorance, the various directors of this material world certainly cannot appreciate it or even know where it is. It is not understandable even to Lord Brahma, Lord Visnu or the King of heaven, Mahendra.

 

 

You do not understand Gita and you have only a term called demi-god which you repeat without scriptural support.

 

 

10.3. He who knows Me as unborn and beginningless, as the great Lord (maheshwara), he, among mortals, is undeluded; he is liberated from all sins.")

 

 

13.23. The Paramatma residing in this body is also called the spectator, the permitter, the supporter, the enjoyer, Mahesvara and the Param Purusha.

 

 

 

 

Book 1 TEXT 8

 

niyatih sa rama devi

tat-priya tad-vasam tada

tal-lingam bhagavan sambhur

jyoti-rupah sanatanah

ya yonih sapara saktih

kamo bijam mahad hareh

 

 

Sakti -- the Goddess, the controller is the desire, the seed, and the faculty of cognition of Hareh. And Sakti is under the control of sanatanah eternal Bhagwan Shambhu. She is the potency of Mahat Hareh.

 

I do not require any answer from you. Ask yourself, which man will entrust his Devi under control of another man? If you have Devi (power of cognition and desire), will you entrust it to me?

 

 

Rama Devi -- Lakshmi is Vishnu's power and she is under control of Lord Shambhu.

 

 

 

Bindu baby, howesoever you try to act fatherly and mature but you come across as poor immature.

[Vinayakan 0]

There is a major difference between the Western religions (Christianity and Islam) and Eastern religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism etc.)

 

In Western religions there is one true God. one saviour (Jesus) or one last prophet (Muhammad). Other gods are false, are devils. This is called exclusivism.

Eastern religions are inclusive. I have a God (ishta-deva) and other gods may be minor gods but they are a form or a manifestion of my God. In the Gita ShreeKrishna said that if you worship other gods, you will come to me. So no false gods.

Another scriptural statement is : Vishnoshca hrudayam shivaH, shivasya hrudayam vishnuH. (The heart of Vishnu is Shiva and the heart of Shiva is Vishnu).

Different names, forms and ways of worship, but the goal is one.

 

Some western Iskoners with Christian backgroud make the mistake to make a exclusive god of Krishna.

 

[Guest guest]

"'My devotees do not accept salokya, sarsti, sarupya, samipya or oneness with Me — even if I offer these liberations — in preference to serving Me.'"

 

spoken by Lord Kapila

[BinduMadhav 0]

Dear Atanu,

 

You don't believe in firmly facing the music, do you?

 

{You are truly poor.}

 

That is much better. Let's keep the arguments about who is poor between you and me; not my Guru and yours.

 

{And mind you I am not calling you demented fool like you called another debater in another thread.}

 

Well, I regretted writing it a few hours after I wrote it. I should not have called Rajasekar a demented fool. A confused person or a person without knowledge is not necessarily a demented fool. I will add an apology to that thread later. But he is wrong.

 

{Rama Devi -- Lakshmi is Vishnu's power and she is under control of Lord Shambhu.}

 

Let's not compare Sri Lakshmi, Lord Vishnu and Siva to ordinary mortals like ourselves. I will check the authenticity of this Shloka later tonight. But saying something like "which man will entrust his Devi under control of another man? If you have Devi (power of cognition and desire), will you entrust it to me?" sounds quite immature to me.

 

{Bindu baby, howesoever you try to act fatherly and mature but you come across as poor immature.}

 

My dear fellow, I don't think you are capable of ticking me off so easily. If you think I come across as immature, so be it. I have no problems with you thinking me immature or poor.

 

You remind me of a professor I had. When I asked him a difficult question, he would say, "We will come to it later". Only the later never would come. Have you looked at my questions (in proper order)? What is your answer, my good Atanu?

 

By the way, I love all the quotations you keep providing me. Apparently you have a website that you refer to. Can you provide all your references? It won't help me, but it may help others.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

CC Antya 3.196: "For a devotee who enjoys the transcendental bliss of devotional service, liberation is most insignificant. Therefore pure devotees never desire to achieve liberation.

 

CC Antya 3.206: "One cannot understand the glories of the holy name simply by logic and argument.

 

read C.C. Antya 3.193-206 http://www.vedabase.org/cc/antya/3/193/en

[Guest guest]

******Some western Iskoners with Christian backgroud make the mistake to make a exclusive god of Krishna.

********

 

No. The western Iskoners know whatever has been taught to them.You may like to see some literature.

 

But God has his own way and will. George Harrison at the fag end of life sang for Uma Mahesvara.

[Guest guest]

YV i. 8. 15. a Thou art the bolt of Indra, slaying foes; with thee may he slay his foe.

 

c Thou art the stepping of Visnu, thou art the step of Visnu, thou art the stride of Visnu

--------------------------

 

the vaishnavas have already cleared the meaning of the verses in the topics 'Narayana is Supreme' and 'Supremacy of Visnu'. but u keep on repeating.

 

 

as for the so called shiva paratva vada in atharvashika, svetashvatara and atharvashira, there are various Vaishnava works which prove that they pertain to Visnu based on proper translation subject to various nyayas that govern vedic interpretation.

 

u shaivites do not confirm to any nyaya. instead u will do an 'anyaya' translation of certain mantras and claim Shiva's supremacy. when pointed that Shiva is given a normal birth, u will not reply by reinterpreting because u cannot do it. Atanu did not reinterpret Saranathan's quotation from shatapatha brahmana. if u want to prove rudra's supremacy then u have to give proper interpretation to all vakyas including 'Narayana Parambrahmah' of Taittreya.

 

to go by Saranathan's quote which i found correct, Shiva can neither be an avatar of Narayana as Atanu claims in a wrong way by misinterpreting Mahopanishad, as Shiva is depicted as a anapahatapapma which is a characteristic feature of jiva.

 

it has been accepted by Adi Shankara in his Kathopanishad bhashya that Visnu is Paramatma and Parambrahmah when he explains the term 'tad visno paramam padam' as ' the abode of Visnu who is Paramatma and parambrahmah. the abode is called Vaikuntha and a muktaatma attains Vikuntha loka.'

 

also in the Pancharatra Adhikarana of his Brahma Sutra bhashya Sankara says that he accepts Narayana as the Parambrahman.

 

while in the Pasupatha adhikarana, Sankara calls Pasupatha(shaiva) as unvedic. one of the reasons he gives is that it goes against the Narayana Samhita(Narayana Valli of Taittreya and Uttaranuvaka of Purusha Sukta in Taittreya).

there fore it is clear that he has accepted Narayana(Visnu) as the Supreme and not Shiva.

 

also as Sankara refers both Narayana and Visnu as parabrahman it is also clear that he identifies both as one and the same.

 

for there can be no two different Brahmans. Sankara calls Narayana as Saguna Brahman. when pointed out , shaivites will say Shiva is nirguna brahman but unfortunately for them it is not possible to claim so as there can be no two different Saguna and Nirguna Brahmans. also from Isavasya Upanishad and Gita it is clear that what is considered as Nirguna Brahman is actually the Brahman effulgence of Lord Narayana/Krishna.

 

so Shiva paratva has no basis. 'Visnuchitta Vijayam' a work by a Sri Vaishnava of Sri Rangam clearly establishes Visnu Paratva by interpreting various Veda vakyas confirming to Sanskrit grammar and the various nyayas governing such interpretations. till now no shaiva has answered to this work in which the author(fondly called 'Sudarshanar') establishes that Visnu is Parambrahmah, SarvaKarana, SarvaRakshaka and Sarva Samharaka. he also proves that Shiva and Brahma deva are jivas as per Vedas. even the Paramacharya of Kanchi was not able to counter his arguments. so don't keep on parroting ur arguments here. the problem is that learned Sri vaishnavas and Tattvavadis(of Madhva sampradraya) are not coming out to argue in internet. they argue in the vidvad sadas of Vedic Pundits where they establish Visnu Paratva without any problem very easily.

 

if u shaivites want to prove ur point, attend such sadas and try to argue with them if u can.

 

A Rg vedic hymn says

 

" na tE VishNO jaayamAnO na jaathO deva mahimna paramanthamApa " .

 

None who ever lived or yet to be born will equal or surpass the Mahima of VishNu .

 

i believe the above is more than enough.

[Guest guest]

External god seeker traits could be many:

1. Maitain the attachment to ones own body, ego & appearence as 'I'

2. Keep the desires and aspirations of the body/ego above all

3. While these aspirations & desires keep changing all time, the person keeps justifying these changes with logic and reason as measure of intellect.

4. Recognizes that people who realize advaitha as egoistic people as all their above aspirations are met without external help/god.

5. Recognize that these advaithic people are going to go about claiming that they are god and people can come to them to meet their aspirations/solve problems.

 

Internal god seekers traits could be many:

1. Seek relief continously from the pain caused due to attachement to the body, ego, desires, logic etc.

2. Pursue to obtain the bliss of god with none of the above, as for external god seekers.

3. Replace 'we' for the 'I' (everything belonging to god is 'I', not just my body/ego/like-minded)

3. Drop the apsiration to become god-men or proclaimed gurus, to solve people's mundane problems and make their apsirations higher. Live by example for service, such as krishna facing the war from the front. Mounam of Guru dakshinamoorthy is the other example most wonderful.

[Guest guest]

I am happy to note this. You may also read his Sivanand Lahari, Dakshinamurti Strotam, Saundarya Lahari, Bhujanga Ashakam, Viveka Chudamani and others.

--------------------------

 

for ur kind information the above works have been quoted only in the past 3-4 centuries and so it is wrong to say Shankara wrote them.

it is suspected that Appaya Dikkshita had written these works under the name 'Sankara' just as he wrote 'Srikanta bhashya' under the name Srikanta. infact all these works do not find a place of mention in the earliest advaitin works nor do they expound Advaita siddhanta anywhere.

 

while Sankara's brahmasutra bhashya, gita bhasya and upanishad bhashyas are quoted in the earliest texts of Advaita siddhanta and so also Bhaja Govindham. these works of Sankara clearly explain Advaita,especially the first three.

 

also Sankara's Visnu Sahasranama bhashya is quoted in the early texts of Advaitins. so the fact is crystal clear -Sankara accepted Visnu's Supremacy only. the shaivas, because they do not have any independent philosophy, took to Advaitam as Vaishnavas had abandoned Advaita philosophy.

 

don't become emotional Atanu. u refer to find ancient Advaita works and u will understand the truth in my statement. because u were brought up/ taught in Shaiva environment probably u failed to see these things.

 

also when u try to identify every devata with Narayana when u interpret 'sa brahma sa shiva......', u make a fundamental mistake as Brahma deva,Indra and Shiva are referred to as jivas in the vedas and a jiva cannot be Brahman.

 

just because a person is given the name of a Lord that person will not become the Lord nor will he come to possess the qualities of that Lord. the same is the case with Shiva. his names were given to him.Saranthan had already explained it. also Yajur Veda says he took boon from devatas to become the lord of animals and thereby have the name Pasupathi and so he is only lord of animals and not of souls for it is for that purpose does he attain that name by seeking a boon. how can a deva who had to get a boon to become lord of animals can be Parambrahman for the Supreme is lord of everything by His nature and He need not get boon from anyone to be the lord of anything.

 

when Jabalyupanishad explains the term 'Pasupathi' it is saying about Narayana as it calls 'Pasu' as referring to jivas and Narayana Sukta says 'atma Isvaram'- Lord of Souls.

 

 

[thiruvengadam 0]

one can only take a horse to the pond...drinking water or not is in the hands of the horse....talk all what u want but remember that by talking in ur manner only proves that ur full of ego, whether shiva is supreme or Vishnu is supreme is another issue, what should really concern u is that ru eligible for mukti in this life.....for sure ur not eligible for u have not come over ur anger and ego.....let alone the question of supremacy......Ragavendra has never called Shiva as a minor God nor has any realised souls though they are Vishnu devotees.....they only said that they personally prefered the Vishnu form of the One God Brahman.....

 

'The truth is one but the sages see it in many forms'-RigVeda.....what say u?

if u really want to challenge me then explain this quote from Rig Veda and then proceed.....but i should warn u....any mis interpretation of these words and u will only show ur ignorance.....for these are the words that dissolve all the differences and makes Sanathana Dharma stand unique and great....

 

'of rudra iam Shankar'-Gita

[Guest guest]

For Yadus, who are egoistically related to Lord but whom Lord did not save or could not save.

 

 

Bindu,

 

Actually, I am wrong to think and talk in your personalized way. God is a person but He is indescribable. So, making him a personal object is foolish. But for the sake of this discussion I come down to your level.

 

 

As usual your post is condescending as if you are the great teacher who knows all. But in reality you use words like ‘demented fool’ for others. Of course you are much better than others in accepting your folly. But still your sin of calling Shiva a demi god without having first realized Lord and without even having read scriptures is graver sin than any other sin.

 

First you have to show scripture to support your claim that Shiva is a demi-god. Then you have to show what I have cited in this thread is Saiva literature. These two things you claimed and you have to prove which you can never fulfill. Your belief is based on falsity, created by Lord as a veil.

 

If you are really humble then this post should give you some light.

 

All shruti I have quoted stand and Shrutis are higher than smritis. Your cock and bull stories and opinions do not count. I need not continue but I do it since it gives me an opportunity to spread the message of Vedas. I believe that Lord himself creates such situations.

 

Your concepts of Gita need to be reconciled to Vedas, which is infallible. If Gita contradicted Vedas anywhere, it would not be Gita. What you loosely comment on status of gods is pure opinion.

 

 

 

So, reconcile with the followings:

 

You have said that Moksha is granted by Lord Krishna alone, assuming that the self of Lord Krishna is not mahesvara. You are wrong. The real and true nature of Lord Krishna is Mahesvara alone (the Param Atma) who is described in Vedas as being the sparkling soul of all gods. And Bhagavatam verses amply makes it clear.

 

Bhagavatam

 

23. O lord, you are self-effulgent and supreme. You create this material world by your personal energy, and you assume the names Brahma, Visnu and Mahesvara when you act in creation, maintenance and annihilation.

 

 

24. You are the cause of all causes, the self-effulgent, inconceivable, Supreme Brahman. You manifest various potencies in this cosmic manifestation.

 

 

 

 

And about Moksha Rig Veda (Sage Vashista) has already guided the universe. Vedas are eternal. Smriti and Puranas are temporal.

 

 

Rig Veda 7.59.12

 

Maha Mrituyonjaya Mantra

 

We Worship Tryambaka, Who spreads Fragrance and Increases nourishment, May He release me, like the cucumber from its stem, from Mortal life, and give me Immorality.

 

 

 

Yes we want Moksha and we know the prayer – it is called Maha Mrituyonjaya Mantra. And I am not citing Jabali Upanishad which also says that Lord Shiva—Avimukta is the liberator. If you wish I can do it.

 

You simply do not know Vedas and Sanatana Dharma. You know only opinions of some people. And due to ego you stick to those.

 

Indra is the offspring of courser (see other references to courser in Rig Veda). If you do not know I will tell that the whole existence has been described as a three layered wheels with spokes and a central un-decaying axle, which is called skambha or the un-decaying controller.

 

Now see below that Indra is son of courser Manyu – a name of Shiva (Manyu is a name of Shiva in Sata Rudriya and in Rig Veda.

 

Book 10 HYMN LXXIII. Indra.

 

1. THOU wast born mighty for victorious valour, exulting, strongest, full of pride and courage. There, even there, the Maruts strengthened Indra when his most rapid Mother stirred the Hero.

-----

10 When others call him offspring of the Courser, my meaning is that Mighty Power produced him. He came from Manyu and remained in houses: whence he hath sprung is known to Indra only.

 

 

Also see that Lord Soma is the father of both Indra and Vishnu.

 

 

RV Book 9 HYMN XCVI. Soma Pavamana

 

 

5 Father of holy hymns, Soma flows onward the Father of the earth, Father of heaven: Father of Agni, Surya's generator, the Father who begat Indra and Visnu.

 

 

 

Indra attains the status of Rudra when Soma juices flow.

 

Rig Veda Book 6 HYMN XIII. Indra.

 

1. INDRA, when Soma juices flow, makes his mind pure and meet for lauds. He gains the power that brings success, for great is he.

 

20 That mind of Rudra, fresh and strong, moves conscious in the ancient ways, With reference whereto the wise have ordered this.

 

 

Now see that Visnu makes stride with Indra’s energy and thus Visnu lauds Indra. Visnu extols Indra. : Visnu sings Indra’s praise. Vedas are correct. Rest is all God’s way to keep immature away.

 

 

 

Rig Veda Book 8 HYMN XII. Indra.

 

 

27 When Visnu, through thine energy, strode wide those three great steps of his, Then thy two beautiful Bay Steeds carried thee on.

 

 

Note: Visnu through Indra’s energy took wide strides and formed the quarters.

 

 

Rig Veda Book 8 HYMN XV. Indra.

 

1. SING forth to him whom many men invoke, to him whom many laud. Invite the powerful Indra with your songs of praise.

 

 

9 Visnu, Varuna, Mitra sing thy praise: In thee the Maruts' company have great delight.

 

 

Note: Visnu sings Indra’s praise

 

 

Book 10 HYMN CXTII. Indra.

 

1. THE Heavens and the Earth accordant with all Gods encouraged graciously that vigorous might of his. When he came showing forth his majesty and power, he drank of Soma juice and waxed exceeding strong.

 

2 This majesty of his, Visnu extols and lauds, making the stalk that gives the meath flow forth with might

 

 

Note: Visnu extols and lauds majesty of Indra

 

 

 

Then see who is the self dependent, undecaying god who yieldeth to no second and who is soul of gods and to whom all credit goes.

 

Vedas are infallible. Keep your stories and opinions aside. You are lucky to be reading these verses (if you are reading at all, since ISKonites do not read – they just pass opinions).

 

Rig Veda 7.46.2

 

To Rudra bring these songs, whose bow is firm and strong, the self-dependent God with swiftly-flying shafts, The Wise, the Conqueror whom none may overcome, armed with sharp-pointed weapons: may he hear our call.

 

He through his lordship thinks on beings of the earth, on heavenly beings through his high imperial sway.

 

 

Note: the self-dependent God. All through Vedas, Rudra alone and no other God is mentioned as self dependent. And He is the conqueror whom none may overcome. Why?

 

Yajur Veda i. 8. 6.

a -------

d Rudra alone yieldeth to no second.

 

 

Yajur Veda: iv. 5. 9.

 

a ----------.

p Homage to you, sparkling hearts of the gods

 

 

 

Book 10 HYMN XCII. Visvedevas.

 

9 With humble adoration show this day your song of praise to mighty Rudra, Ruler of the brave: With whom, the Eager Ones, going their ordered course, he comes from heaven Self-effulgent, auspicious, strong to guard.

 

 

 

11 For these songs, the Earth and Heaven with their abundant seed, four-bodied Narasmsa, Yama, Aditi, God Tvastar Wealth-bestower, the Rbhuksanas, Rodasi, Maruts, Visnu, claim and merit praise.

 

 

 

 

Note: All else --- Narasmsa, Yama, Aditi, God Tvastar Wealth-bestower, the Rbhuksanas, Rodasi, Maruts, Visnu ---- claim and merit praise on account of Him alone -- the self effulgent Rudra.

 

 

Shruti exists on Sarveshvara. No need to speculate

 

SU III, 3-4

i) 3. On all sides eye, on all sides face,

on all sides arms, on all sides feet,

he, God, the One, creates heaven and earth,

forging them together with arms and wings.

4. He who is source and origin of the Gods,

the Lord of all, Rudra, the mighty sage,

who produced in ancient days the Golden Germ--

may he endow us with purity of mind!

 

 

 

And know that the Sarvesvara is alone known as Vishnu and Vayu and others.

 

 

Yajur Veda iv. 4. 9.

 

(Thou art) ---------- Visnu when being taken down; ---------- Vayu when covered up; the gazer on men when revealed; the food when it comes; the famed of the fathers; life when taken; the river when going to the final bath; the ocean when gone; the water when dipped; the heaven when arrived at completion.

 

 

And we have already seen that some one is actually the steps of Vishnu and bolt of Indra.

 

Yajur Veda i. 8. 15. a Thou art the bolt of Indra, slaying foes; with thee may he slay his foe.

c Thou art the stepping of Visnu, thou art the step of Visnu, thou art the stride of Visnu

 

 

 

 

Bhagavatam

 

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 Uma, 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.

 

 

Well Bhagavatam is clear. You are such a self conceited person who cannot understand Lord because of conceit and ego. You people always think that your opinions are final and you do not hestate to abuse others and demean the knowledge of Vedas and the Lord himself. But know that Shiva breaks ego.

 

 

********

Again, my logic is this:

 

1. Lord Krishna says that in order to achieve Moksha, we have to worship Him, not others.

 

2. We all want to achieve Moksha. You too, right? So why do we want to worship any other god?

*********

 

Well your logic is ., since you do not know the Vedas and the real nature of Vishnu (Krishna) as Self, which is Shiva.

 

LORD KRISHNA TRULY SAYS “DO NOT WORSHIP A GOD OTHER THAN THE SELF, WHOSE EMBODIMENT IS ME AND THE REAL NATURE IS UNBORN MAHESVARA.”

 

 

From Gita

 

9. 11 Avajaananti maam moodhaah maanusheem tanumaashritam;

Param bhaavamajaananto mama bhootamaheshwaram.

 

 

9.11. Fools disregard Me, clad in human form, not knowing My higher Being as the great Lord of (all) beings.

 

 

10.3 Yo maamajamanaadim cha vetti lokamaheshwaram;

Asammoodhah sa martyeshu sarvapaapaih pramuchyate.

 

 

10.3. He who knows Me as unborn and beginningless, as the great Lord (maheshwaram), he, among mortals, is undeluded; he is liberated from all sins.

 

 

 

13.13 Jneyam yattat pravakshyaami jjnaatwaa’mritamashnute;

Anaadimatparam brahma na sattannaasaduchyate.

 

 

13.13. I will declare that which has to be known, knowing which one attains to immortality, the beginning less supreme Brahman, called neither being nor non-being.

 

 

13.17 Avibhaktam cha bhooteshu vibhaktamiva cha sthitam;

Bhootabhartru cha tajjneyam grasishnu prabhavishnu cha.

 

 

13.17. And undivided, yet He exists as if divided in beings; He is to be known as the supporter of beings; He devours and He generates also.

 

 

 

13.23 Upadrashtaanumantaa cha bhartaa bhoktaa maheshwarah;

Paramaatmeti chaapyukto dehe’smin purushah parah.

 

 

13.23. The spirit in the body is called Mahesvara, the Great Lord, the spectator, the admonisher, the sustainer, the enjoyer, and also the Paramatma, the highest soul.

 

End of citation

 

 

Try to reflect on the real nature of Krishna and read the whole Gita in the light of Vedas. When Krishna says: surrender to me, he means surrender to Self, Param Atma. And Vedas teach us what that Param Atma is.

 

 

 

And you are very small. I am also very small, maybe smaller than you, but at least I know the verses I have cited and the following two verse also.

 

Yaju Veda ii. 6. 8.

 

The gods excluded Rudra from the sacrifice; he pierced the sacrifice, the gods gathered round it (saying), 'May it be right for us.' They said, 'Well offered will this be for us, if we propitiate him.'

 

 

Bhagavatam

 

the various directors of this material world certainly cannot appreciate it or even know where it is. It is not understandable even to Lord Brahma, Lord Visnu or the King of heaven, Mahendra.

 

 

 

Bindu baby, do not claim to be a Hindu if you do not agree to Vedas, which are eternal. Smriti is simply to direct guys like you to the correct knowledge – eventually.

 

 

Lord is as below:

 

 

Yajur Veda iv. 4. 8.

(Thou I art) all overcoming through Agni; self-ruling through the sun; lord of sakti through might; creator with the vrishava; ---------

 

And friend I can go on and on.

 

Shiva-Rudra is Dauys (heaven) and the Earth (mother). He is all Devis. Lakshmi has source in the crescent moon adorned god. He is then Parjanya (consciousness), then Soma, then Indra-Vishnu-Agni-Vayu – sons of Aditi (Sakti). He is also father of Maruts who assist Adityas in their Lordly functions.

 

For all these I can provide support from Rig Veda and Upanishads. Shiva never sleeps. Lord Vishnu is supported by Adisesha and goes to sleep on Adi Sesha.

 

 

 

Om Namah Sivayya

[Guest guest]

*********

A Rg vedic hymn says

 

" na tE VishNO jaayamAnO na jaathO deva mahimna paramanthamApa " .

**********

 

Oh Yes. Who doubts it?

 

Rig Veda also says that "Visnu formed quarters with Indra's energy"

 

Rig Vedas also says:

 

--- Thou art Vishnu when brought down"

 

Rig Veda also says:

 

Visnu, Aditi et al claim and merit praise on account of auspicious, self effulgent, undefeatable Rudra

 

 

Take all verses into account

 

 

[thiruvengadam 0]

ofcourse this is more than enough

--

A Rg vedic hymn says

 

" <font color="red"> None who ever lived or yet to be born will equal or surpass the Mahima of VishNu </font color> " .

 

i believe the above is more than enough.

---

 

<font color="red"> just for ur info....shiva was never born and he never lived to die....and nor will He be born (unlike mortals) </font color>

 

so where do u lead us?

 

no saivite ever compared a born, lived and died person equal to Vishnu and nor will they compare anyone to be born with Visnu....so whom do u oppose and to whom do u contradict?

 

my dear get urself clear and get to know the meanings of Vedas clearly...the knowledege is not got by mearly reading the lines....knowledge is only got when u read inbetween lines.....now dont ask me what reading inbetween lines is....

 

Thiru

[Guest guest]

*********

it is suspected that Appaya Dikkshita had written these works under the name 'Sankara'

*********

 

All suspicion and no substance. Why do not you talk of additions to Purusha Suktam?

 

 

***********

don't become emotional Atanu. u refer to find ancient Advaita works and u will understand the truth in my statement.

***********

 

Well then follow those advaita works in full. Why be selective? If Sankara praises Visnu Sahasranama he also talks of Advaita. Believe Advaita also.

 

Then Vedas give Sata Rudriyam. Your clouded vision does not accept Sata Rudriyam, which is Vedic and eternal.

 

 

***********

when Jabalyupanishad explains the term 'Pasupathi' it is saying about Narayana as it calls 'Pasu' as referring to jivas and Narayana Sukta says 'atma Isvaram'- Lord of Souls.

*********

 

 

This is again classic. When Shruti says "Eko Rudro", Vaisnavas say It is not referring to Rudra. When Shruti says :

 

i) 3. On all sides eye, on all sides face,

on all sides arms, on all sides feet,

he, God, the One, creates heaven and earth,

forging them together with arms and wings.

4. He who is source and origin of the Gods,

the Lord of all, Rudra, the mighty sage,

who produced in ancient days the Golden Germ--

may he endow us with purity of mind!

 

 

You say this not about Rudra.

 

Similarly when Sata Rudriya says Bhagwan Nil Griva, Vaisnavs say , it is not Shiva.

 

When Bhagavatam says:

 

 

31. O Lord Girisa, since your effulgence is transcendental to the material modes of goodness, passion and ignorance, the various directors of this material world certainly cannot appreciate it or even know where it is. It is not understandable even to Lord Brahma, Lord Visnu or the King of heaven, Mahendra.

 

You will say Girisa is Not Girisa. (Matter for comedy and not for debate).

 

 

I just point out that Girisa is a name in Sata Rudriya. And Vedas also say that Rudra-Shiva is soul of all Gods.

 

 

Well believe whatever you wish to believe and be happy.

 

I repeat that I am not a Shaiva. By God's grace I am above categories.

 

 

 

 

[BinduMadhav 0]

thiruvengadam wrote:

 

 

{no saivite ever compared a born, lived and died person equal to Vishnu and nor will they compare anyone to be born with Visnu....so whom do u oppose and to whom do u contradict?}

 

Here you go...another rebel. If you consider Lord Ramachandra as not a reincarnation of Lord Vishnu, I really don't think you can consider yourself a true Hindu. As far as Lord Krishna is concerned, He IS LORD VISHNU. So there is no doubt about it.

 

On the other hand, if you want to start another school, there is another 'Guest' on this forum who thinks 'Bhakti Yoga' is actually pursuit of knowledge.

 

 

[BinduMadhav 0]

Dear Atanu,

 

{As usual your post is condescending as if you are the great teacher who knows all.}

 

Hypocrisy, thy name is Atanu! You say, "Bindu baby", or, "for the sake of this discussion I come down to your level." and you says I am condescending? My good man, you are exceedingly interesting.

 

 

"First you have to show scripture to support your claim that Shiva is a demi-god."

 

Srimad Bhagavatha Purana states it clearly, as does Sri Tulasidas's Ramacharita Manas. Where Lord Vishnu is physically present, every other god is a demigod. Didn't I define the word 'Demigod' for you earlier?

 

{You have said that Moksha is granted by Lord Krishna alone, assuming that the self of Lord Krishna is not mahesvara. You are wrong. }

 

Well, you are wrong. I have not only said Lord Krishna is Maheshvara (Great Lord) but also Parameshvara (Supreme Lord). There is none other than Lord Krishna.

 

You have provided a whole lot of information without understanding or contributing any original idea.

 

If you are in love with Siva and you cannot go past Siva's image of a Yogi meditating on Sriman Narayana, then so be it. But don't say I did not warn you. Srimad Bhagavad-Gita admonishes people from worshipping Kshudra-Devatas although, unfortunately Lord Krishna does not define a Kshudra-Devata. Here-in comes the difficulty. Which is why worshipping Lord Krishna in his beautiful human form is the best way. That way, you won't go wrong. On the other hand, if one wants to meditate on Sriman Narayana (Parama Purusha), that is OK too.

 

Also, Srimad Bhagavad-Gita states that people with Asuri-character worship Kshudra Devatas. Whom do the Asuras worship generally? Siva.

 

All the quotes you have provided from the Vedas are wonderful but all that can be set aside in front of Lord Hari.

 

{Shiva never sleeps. Lord Vishnu is supported by Adisesha and goes to sleep on Adi Sesha.}

 

Poof! That shows your knowledge. Lord Vishnu is not asleep, He is in Yoga-Nidra.

 

[BinduMadhav 0]

Dear Shyam,

 

{..Appaya Dikkshita had written these works under the name 'Sankara' just as he wrote 'Srikanta bhashya' under the name Srikanta. infact all these works do not find a place of mention in the earliest advaitin works nor do they expound Advaita siddhanta anywhere.}

 

I totally agree with you. Many scholars have opined that Sankara's Sivananda Lahari, Soundarya Lahari and others are not original works of Sankara. I did not know, however, that Appayya Dikshitar had written them. It sounds very logical since Appayya Dikshitar was a staunch Saivite as well as a worshipper of Goddess Uma and he hated Lord Vishnu. He also wrote a book called 'Sivaadhikya'. Perhaps Atanu Bhai has read that thoroughly.

 

[Guest guest]

There is no point you guys sweating on Shiva vishnu debate. Sorry Shiva and krishna debate.

 

Krishna is above vishnu right...., ram is above vishnu & below krishna right...oh vaishnavas? & narayana...may be he should be below vsihnu right....? I am guessing, but you guys (vaishnavites) are thorough and can cut paste a whole lot of great scriptures with your junkish interpretations. And you guys achieve this knowledge due to your gurus, and the rituals and the traditions maintained from the time for krishna himself. Wow.

 

Listen India will still be the country to retain the knowledge of advaitha. We'll still be getting individual seeker from across the world. Most of these guys end up ditching organized religions. Nothing is going to change.

 

 

[BinduMadhav 0]

Dear Guest,

 

{There is no point you guys sweating on Shiva vishnu debate. Sorry Shiva and krishna debate.

 

Krishna is above vishnu right...., ram is above vishnu & below krishna right...oh vaishnavas?...}

 

Your post is cool; and has some truth.

 

So let's all accept the following order for supremacy of gods:

 

Supreme Lord Krishna/Vishnu: Paramatma, Parabrahman or Supreme God.

 

Sri Lakshmi/Andal: Vishnu Shakti, inseparable from Lord Vishnu.

 

Siva: Greatest Vaishnav, First in line among demigods. Very dear to Lord Vishnu because of his Bhakti for Vishnu.

 

Goddess Ambika: Siva Shakti, inseparable from Siva.

 

Then all other gods and goddesses.

 

What say thou, Atanu?

 

[Ganeshprasad 0]

Jai Ganesh

 

Re

( Srimad Bhagavad-Gita admonishes people from worshipping Kshudra-Devatas although,)

 

Please mind your language, Devtas are divine beings

 

Re

(unfortunately Lord Krishna does not define a Kshudra-Devata.)

 

That is because there are no such being.

 

Re

(Here-in comes the difficulty.)

 

that is because you are blinded by your dogma.

 

Re

(Also, Srimad Bhagavad-Gita states that people with Asuri-character worship Kshudra Devatas. Whom do the Asuras worship generally? Siva.)

 

First of all there no such statement in Bhagvat Gita.

Your implication here is that Siva is Kshudra Devata.(what ever that means)

And you guys call him Param Vaishnava.Don't make lough.

What would you make of Gopis worshiping Siva?

 

Actualy this is what Krishna says

Chapter 3. Karma-yoga

TEXT 11

 

devan bhavayatanena

te deva bhavayantu vah

parasparam bhavayantah

sreyah param avapsyatha

Nourish the Devas with Yajna, and the Devas will nourish you. Thus nourishing one another you shall attain the Supreme goal. (3.11)

 

yajante sattvika devan

yaksa-raksamsi rajasah

pretan bhuta-ganams canye

yajante tamasa janah

The Saattvika persons worship Devas, the Raajasika people worship demons, and the Taamasika persons worship ghosts and spirits. (17.04)

 

And in reply to Arjun in chapter 10 read on and if you accept Krishna's authority than accept it without any reservation.

How may I know You, O Lord, by constant contemplation? In what form (of manifestation) are You to be thought of by me, O Lord? (10.17)

 

 

O Lord, explain to me again in detail, Your yogic power and glory; because, I am not satiated by hearing Your nectar-like words. (10.18)

 

 

The Supreme Lord said: O Arjuna, now I shall explain to you My prominent divine manifestations, because My manifestations are endless. (10.19)

 

 

O Arjuna, I am the Atma abiding in the heart of all beings. I am also the beginning, the middle, and the end of all beings. (10.20)

 

 

I am Vishnu among the (twelve) sons of Aditi, I am the radiant sun among the luminaries, I am Marici among the gods of wind, I am the moon among the stars. (10.21)

 

 

I am the Sama Veda among the Vedas; I am Indra among the Devas; I am the mind among the senses; I am the consciousness in living beings. (10.22)

 

 

I am Shiva among the Rudras; (I am) Kubera among the Yakshas and demons; I am the fire among the Vasus; and I am Meru among the mountain peaks. (10.23)

 

 

 

Jai Shree Krishna

 

[Guest guest]

"

Supreme Lord Krishna/Vishnu: Paramatma, Parabrahman or Supreme God.

 

Sri Lakshmi/Andal: Vishnu Shakti, inseparable from Lord Vishnu.

 

Siva: Greatest Vaishnav, First in line among demigods. Very dear to Lord Vishnu because of his Bhakti for Vishnu.

 

Goddess Ambika: Siva Shakti, inseparable from Siva.

"

 

 

Thank you for the partial heirarchical laundry list of gods. Vaishnavites can enlighten us more, if wanted. Thank you for this for now.

 

What does it mean as ACCEPT?

To whom does this meaning of ACCEPT makes sense?

How is it validated?

If it is ACCEPTED then what does one get, which is not possible otherwise?

How does this thing called ACCEPT relate to spiritual experience?