Doubt About Mahabharat's Accuracy

[Guest guest]

I am a devote of Lord Krishna. I have a question and Hope you will curiosity. People says Mahabharat is very accurate but it states that Lord Krishna worshiped Siva, a Tamasik god. How can this be? On the other hand, Srimad Bhagavata Purana seems right becase Krishna defeeted Siva when he was protect a Rakshasa.

 

What do you think?

 

Achyuta

[Ganeshprasad 0]

Jai Ganesh

Siva is not Tamasik.

He is Sivam

The most auspicious

Om Namah Sivaya

May Lord Sambhu lead us out of darkness to light

(shivamahimna stotra)

shmashAneshhvAkrIDA smarahara pishAchAH sahacharaaH

chitAbhasmAlepaH sragapi nR^ikaroTIparikaraH .

amaN^galyaM shIlaM tava bhavatu nAmaivamakhilaM

tathApi smartR^INAM varada paramaM maN^galamasi ..

 

O,boon giver! O,destroyer of Cupid! You play in the burning ghats . your

friends are the ghosts . Your body is smeared with the ashes of the dead

bodies . Your garland is of human skulls . Every aspect of your character is

thus inauspicious . Let it be . It does not matter . Because, with all these

known oddness, you are quick to grant all auspicious things to the people

who just think of you .

Jai Shree Krishna

 

[Guest guest]

i think this is just a depiction of the ancient Siva worship that was very much established in India long before the Vedic worship.

 

Krishna worshipping Siva can either be;

 

1. a depiciton of this - Krishna's veneration of an already established religion in India

 

or

 

2. the Mahabharata writers attempt to show that Krishna stood for tolerance and worhsip of God in any form.

[krishnadas7 0]

siva is one of the great mahajanas, as explained by srila prabhupada, he is a great devotee of lord krishna, we can see lord shiva always meditating on lord krishna. he is a partial separate manifestation of krishna,as individual. But always work according to the will of lord krishna......and it is said that who try to check the statuses of demigods and supreme god , will go to helish planets.

Everyone is working for the will of supreme father, even I , YOU , EVERYONE , according to their own consiousness developed, serving internal energy (sac- chit- ananda-vigraha (goloka) ) or external energy ( satthva rajo tamo guna ( maya) ) of lord krishna ......haribol

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

Although I am just a student of this wonderful religion, but it seems that you (krishna das) knew the answer to your question before you asked it. I mean, of course the bhagavata purana is going to extol sri krishna, and of course swami prabhupad is going to say lord siva is a devotee of sri krishna.

Are you asking for scriptural proof that sri krishna worshipped lord siva, or is there something else you are wondering? Please clarify for me. This could be interesting.

-C

[Guest guest]

Sorry krishna das, I thought you started the topic!!!! My post was addressed to the person who started the topic...sorry

-C

[Guest guest]

I startd the tread not Krishn Das. I dont want scripture quote. I want truth. Who is great? Lord Krishna or Siva. Vaishnavs like I bethinks Siva is a demigod. If Krishna is Supreme God, why did Krishn worschip Siva? So Mahabharat is wrong, right?

 

 

 

Sorry krishna das, I thought you started the topic!!!! My post was addressed to the person who started the topic...sorry

-C

[shivani01 0]

No one is wrong or right. Vaisnavism see God Visnu as the supreme menifest of the reality(Bramand), Saivaites sees Lord Shiva as the supreme and shaktas sees the Devi as the supreme. So, who is right? All of them, because Siva, vishnu, devi, and others are menifestation of Bramand). The ultimate reality, supreme godhood or any other name you chose to give is formless yet has many forms, is neither male nor female yet is both. So, Mahabharta is not worng Krsn can be devotee of siva and still be supreme or vice versa.

[jhsharma 0]

please refer to Ram charitmanas

 

shiv drohi mum bhagat kahava

 

means Sri ram chander told this a person can never be his follower while having illful will toward the lord Shiva.

 

Ram and Krishan are avtar of Lord Vishnu

[Jahnava Nitai Das 1]

 

People says Mahabharat is very accurate but it states that Lord Krishna worshiped Siva, a Tamasik god.

Shiva is the topmost devotee of Lord Krishna, so Lord Krishna is always thinking of him and taking any chance he can to worship him. The Lord is attracted by only one thing, and that is bhakti; and by bhakti one can bind the Lord. The heart of Lord shiva is filled with Narayana and the heart of Narayana is filled with Shiva. This is the relationship between the Lord and His devotees. In Ramcharitamanasa it is said "One cannot develop love for Narayana even in a dream if one does not have love for Lord Shiva."

[The_Blessed_Guy 0]

 

I am a devote of Lord Krishna. I have a question and Hope you will curiosity. People says Mahabharat is very accurate but it states that Lord Krishna worshiped Siva, a Tamasik god. How can this be? On the other hand, Srimad Bhagavata Purana seems right becase Krishna defeeted Siva when he was protect a Rakshasa.

What do you think?

Achyuta

Lord Krishna is known incarnation of the supreme ! accurately to understand for 'the supreme personified' ! personification of all the qualities is one of the chief characteristics of hindus since vedic era but without deviating from vedic philosophy mentioned through six system. your querry is very superficial if you worship Krishna out of love if not out of love then u r destined to be bewildered on account of the cosmic dissoluter force personified and worshipped by millions in form of Lord Shiva ! just u meditate over the power of dissolution happening all the time around you and find out the beauty of power used in showing that simple change through personified form i.e Lord Shiva ! Lord Shiva if tAmsik then we must think over the beauty of tAmsik state of the think in original way which i wud like to narrate on some other occassion but i wud like guide to go through Saamkhya philosophy propounded by sage Kapil beforehand.

with love !

The_Blessed_Guy

[Guest guest]

 

please refer to Ram charitmanas

 

shiv drohi mum bhagat kahava

 

means Sri ram chander told this a person can never be his follower while having illful will toward the lord Shiva.

 

Ram and Krishan are avtar of Lord Vishnu

I am not aganst Sivji, hav great respectt for him. Siva destroys so has tuf job. Point is, how Lord Krishna bow to Sivji? Siv is Lord Krishn's devote. That is all. So me bethinks Mahabharat is not correct. That is all.

[Guest guest]

 

I am a devote of Lord Krishna. I have a question and Hope you will curiosity. People says Mahabharat is very accurate but it states that Lord Krishna worshiped Siva, a Tamasik god. How can this be? On the other hand, Srimad Bhagavata Purana seems right becase Krishna defeeted Siva when he was protect a Rakshasa.

 

What do you think?

 

Achyuta

"Who is the Supreme lord of the Gods, on whom the world rests, who rules over the bibeds and the quadrupeds here? To what god shall we offer our oblations?

 

One attains infinite peace when one realizes that Siva who is subtler than the subtlest, who creates the world in the midst of chaos, who assumes various forms, and who is the only one that encompasses the universe."

 

~Svetasvatara Upanishad 4.13,14

 

 

"(I bow) to Shiva of the form of Vishnu and Vishnu who is Shiva; Vishnu is Shiva’s heart and Shiva, Vishnu’s. Just as Vishnu is full of Shiva, so is Shiva full of Vishnu. As I see no difference, I am well all my life."

 

~Skanda Upanishad 1.8,9

 

"Therefore, those who worship Lord Vishnu, worship Siva Himself. And those who worship Siva, worship Lord Vishnu in reality. Those who envy and hate Sri Rudra, are actually hating Sri Vishnu. Those who decry Lord Siva, decry Vishnu Himself."

 

~Rudra Hridaya Upanishad

[Jahnava Nitai Das 1]

The story of Harihara murti will enlighten those who have aversion for one of the two (Shiva and Vishnu).

[Guest guest]

 

I am a devote of Lord Krishna. I have a question and Hope you will curiosity. People says Mahabharat is very accurate but it states that Lord Krishna worshiped Siva, a Tamasik god. How can this be? On the other hand, Srimad Bhagavata Purana seems right becase Krishna defeeted Siva when he was protect a Rakshasa.

 

What do you think?

 

Achyuta

This point would be valid if the Mahabharata categorized Shiva as a Tamasik God. No such concept exists in the Mahabharata and therefore Krishna bowing down to Shiva should be no problem, even for Vaishnavas.

 

The Tamasik nonsense came much later in some interpolations in Padma Purana, etc. Ironically the same Padma Purana also has a Shiva Gita describing Shiva as the Supreme entity. So it is best not to read too much into who is better than who based on such dubious, inconsistent sources.

 

Vishnu in his role as Krishna of the mahabharata had several roles to play including romancing women, studying at a Gurukula, eating, shaving, etc. You may question each of these activities then, to ask why the Supreme needs to do any of this.

 

Cheers

[riih.qarojamahoamaan 0]

By the way, in the Qalqi pyraanam Qalqi is said to worship Ziwa at his youth, and thus he got a boon of a horse and the mighty sword from lord Ziwa. But then Qalqi is said to be QARA-HARA-ZARA,NA that is "the shelter of qara (brahmaa) and hara (ziwa), or he is all three: he is qara=creator, hara=destroyer and zara,na=shelter. So, every time the God of life descends to earth, he plays the role of a human, and the role of humans includes worshipping Ziwa. This is only a role. In reality, all deities worship the God of Life, and they are part of his body. The bad thing is that a part of God's body has become cancerous, so the God of Life has to remove it. I advise: do not take part in God's body's cancer. Thank you.

[Guest guest]

It cannot be denied that Shiva worship is very ancient in India, but it would be interesting to see if the Shavite schools that exist today have any connection with Shaivism of the ancient times.

Not only is their Shaivite worship in Mahabharata, but in Ramayana Lord Rama worships Shiva and Shakti and gains spiritual power to destroy Ravana. Now it can be argued that why does he need to do this when he is Lord Vishnu himself? Maybe it was to show others how to be tolerant. Maybe it is really to invoke 'the destroyer' aspect within himself that certian shaivite mantras need to be recited?

 

But if you believe in Vishnu as supreme God and Shiva and all the others as demigods that are totally seperate entities it is no doubt going to be confusing.

[Guest guest]

I am not a religious person per se. Neither i have studied any scriptures. I don't even know sanskrit for that matter. My take on the topic is, say - that of a layman. My understanding is as follows :

 

God is one & ultimate. We are unable to understand even a small fraction of God. To worship Him, we need some identifiable symbol/description. We understand that He is the epitome of Greatest / best of all ideas/attributes. So, according to own capabilities /limitations, one fashions his own God. This idea is very strong in literatures. you can find "Istha devata"s for different group of people (like Laxmi & Ganesha for traders, Saraswati for students etc.). The scritures somewhere mention 33 types/qualities of devata (Koti - quality, not crores).

 

The similar concept applies for vaishnava/shaiva/shakta cults as well. People attribute their own concepts/ideals on their God. The people write / interpret scripture as per their ideals.

 

In the opening paragraph of Gita or somewhere, krishna said that all offerings go to "Keshava or me". However, when someone is offering to some devata, the offering to Keshava is only partial. This is simply because (my own interpretation),--- when ones god is only a limited one or demigod, he is only praying to a very small portion of the God. So only a portion (angsha) of offering goes to Keshava.

 

The people following any cult tries to glorify that cult. The logic is --unless it is the best, then why I am following it in the 1st place ? But this sort of paeans should be taken in proper spirit only. It does not mean the other cult is good/bad or anything.

 

BTW, the other day, In Mathura, I told one chap that Hunting is not wrong. That person was all agitated and gave me a long lecture about Hindu-ism. At last moment i reminded him that King Dasharath, father of Ramachamdra went for hunting & so did other kings. If it (hunting) was all bad practices, then somebody should have remarked negatively in the scriptures.

 

This is what I call foisting own ideals about the God on God and interpreting scriptures the way it suits us. And sometimes even arguing to great length over some minor tatwik details (like shiva was Tamasika or not, whether krishna bowed to shiva etc.).

 

These small tatwik details are very small part of the picture. The overall picture shows duality as well as sameness (Hari-Hara).

 

This sort of identification (krishna bhakta/ shiva bhakta or something narrow identity only) and wrangling over it only weakens Hindu soceity.

 

'Hope this rambling from a lay person has not offended too many people.

 

Regards

[Guest guest]

well guys.. i dont know wht u people r talking abt or fighting abt and literally i m not a religious person by any religious practice or worshiping anyone.. but in other way i m religious cuz i dont like to hurt anyone n like to love everyone, give repect to everyone n like to live peacefully, well i can say i m religious in this way cuz its in every religion tht be good to everyone and give respect.

by birth, if u say, than i m hindu, but i m not in any practice, n some of the practices, i dont believe. but i do belief in God. i m writting this first time n i dont know i should write it or not.. but i think if we dont talk than how will we know.

 

writting this letter is not to hurt anyone or anyone's believe. i might be wrong but the questions comes in my mind says tht something is wrong somewhere or we dont hav complete knowlegde of it n we r just carrying on without thinking on it. we should really think abt it(thts wht i think).

 

These questions r very common n i belief tht it does appear in every human's mind, but we just ignore it or dont want to think abt it, there r lot of reasons for tht, one of which is our religious belief.

 

first of all i like to know, which disturb me most, is tht if we r a generation of just one human being (which we call Adam) than why there r so many religion in this world. why they all r different in worshiping a God? if u see, in all religion the base is same, which i think is, belief in God, worship God, be helpful to other human being, be calm n tolarent, speak nicely with others, dont be greedy, give others their right, .. n lots of other things like these. but the difference is the way we Worship God. dont u think?

 

who is God? n if he is the one than why we r not Worshiping Him? if He made a religion for us than y He made so many? why He didnt made just one religion n giv it to Adam n keep it like tht for eternal.

 

is it possible tht He made the religion at the begining but while poeple start distroying it so He has to sent some more religion to modify it or to change it completely? n if it is true than why we r not following His last religion? which could be His last religion? if hinduism is His first religion than which is His last? do anyone know abt it?

 

r we really fighting on religious belief or we r just fighting on culture belief? cuz i think religious belief is same for everyone from the begining till end.

 

well people there r lot of questions comes in my mind, but i think i should know these question's answer frist. u people might know some gurus or molvis or fathers or scholars. so people, if u think on it n get any answer from anywhere than do let me know at kbheem@hotmail.com.

 

n i m sorry again if i hurt anyone from any belief.

 

May God keep all His grace on u all n bless u all.

take care.

[Guest guest]

First of all you should start a new thread as your topic goes off in a new direction to what this thread is about.

 

 

by birth, if u say, than i m hindu, but i m not in any practice, n some of the practices, i dont believe.

 

Not all Hindus believe in all the practices. You'll never find any Hindu who believes or follows all the practices. For example a Vaishnava won't follow tantric rituals.

 

 

first of all i like to know, which disturb me most, is tht if we r a generation of just one human being (which we call Adam) than why there r so many religion in this world. why they all r different in worshiping a God?

 

We are not a generation of one human being called Adam. That is an Abrahamic belief that is not credible. There are many religions in this world because there are many holy men who taught their path to God and they have many followers. If there is a disagreement with a holy man who founded a religion, then a new sect of the religion or an entirely new religion is born from those who disagree. There are many religions because people and cultures are diverse and different from each other. There have been many ancient religions before Christianity and Islam that have either died out or have been wiped out by others. The only ancient pre-christian religions that survive today are Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Taoism, Zorastrianism and Judaism.

 

 

if u see, in all religion the base is same, which i think is, belief in God, worship God, be helpful to other human being, be calm n tolarent, speak nicely with others, dont be greedy, give others their right, .. n lots of other things like these. but the difference is the way we Worship God. dont u think?

 

No there are alot more differences than the way we worship God, for example the theology is different, concepts of life after death is different, The Abrahamic faiths don't believe in giving others their right, they believe that other religions are wrong and their people are to be converted. Also, not all religions believe in God, for example Buddhism, however all those other qualities you mentioned of religion, the Buddhists practice well.

 

 

who is God? n if he is the one than why we r not Worshiping Him? if He made a religion for us than y He made so many? why He didnt made just one religion n giv it to Adam n keep it like tht for eternal.

 

Like I said the Adam and Eve story is not credible. There were religions before Judaism, so that story should not take the place of 'historical truth'.

 

 

is it possible tht He made the religion at the begining but while poeple start distroying it so He has to sent some more religion to modify it or to change it completely? n if it is true than why we r not following His last religion? which could be His last religion? if hinduism is His first religion than which is His last?

 

No, the religions are different to the core, right from the beginning. Suppose a self-proclaimed prophet comes tommorow and says "all you religious people have been doing is wrong. You guy's need to follow me and give up your old faith". Are you going to believe him? Probabaly not. If God keeps making so many silly mistakes that he needs to keep sending messengers to sort out his problems, then how can he be great? How is he worthy or worship if he makes so many mistakes?

Going by your rationale of following his last religion, then that would mean following Sikhism as this was the last religion.

 

 

r we really fighting on religious belief or we r just fighting on culture belief? cuz i think religious belief is same for everyone from the begining till end.

 

Religious belief is not the same. Different religions believe in different things.

Different religions fight...because of religion itself. The argument between Shaivites and Vaishnavas is a sectarian argument and the blame can be put at the feet of the leaders of these movement as well as their followers who may have started it in the first place. This could all be because of improper understanding.

 

 

u people might know some gurus or molvis or fathers or scholars.

n i m sorry again if i hurt anyone from any belief.

 

Gurus...maybe, but why molvis? Take a look under the title Hindu-Religion.net, it says discussions on Hindu Philosophy and religion, not Islam. This is not a Muslim message board - muslims have other message boards on the internet where they can promote Islam, but this is not one of them.

[riih.qarojamahoamaan 0]

Shaivas say Shiva is not the god of tamas. All right. Then may i ask, which is the deity of tamas? most people are taamasic, they eat always taamasic food, smoke, drugs, alcohol, they are especially active during taamasic hours and do all taamasic acts; so they worship the god of tamas by their way of living. Then some one say clearly, who is the god of tamas?

[Guest guest]

 

Shaivas say Shiva is not the god of tamas. All right. Then may i ask, which is the deity of tamas? most people are taamasic, they eat always taamasic food, smoke, drugs, alcohol, they are especially active during taamasic hours and do all taamasic acts; so they worship the god of tamas by their way of living. Then some one say clearly, who is the god of tamas?

The clear and obvious answer is no one.

 

Why should there be a God categorized as Tamasic? Do you have good reasons for drawing such a conclusion? Other than for some random quotes from dubious Puranas, no such concept exists.

 

I am also not aware that most people always eat Tamasic food and are into smoke, drugs and alcohol. Even for those who do, no rule exists which requires them to worship a God, Tamasic or otherwise. There is no link at all.

 

Cheers

[Guest guest]

One of the reasons religions and religious factions quarrel is even among religions that are very open to differing interpretations of the divine, we're all still human and subject to human fallacies. One of those fallacies is the tendency to mistake a small part of the big picture for the entirety of the big picture.

 

Take the story of the blind men and the elephant. Each one thinks an elephant is something different based on what part they are feeling. One feels a leg and thinks an elephant is a tree. One feels the trunk and thinks it's a hose, snake, or such. One touches the side and thinks it's a wall. Another touched the tail and thinks it's a rope.

 

If humans could keep in mind that we all have different parts of the elephant, but still don't know what the elephant is in truth, we'd be okay. But, many people and religions think their part of the elephant is the true definition of what an elephant is, and so they bicker about how to describe the elephant.

 

As for the original question, I seem to recall a story about someone wanting to know whom they should follow - Shiva or Vishnu. When they approached Shiva, they found him worshipping Vishnu. When they approached Vishnu, they found him worshipping Shiva.

[Jahnava Nitai Das 1]

 

Why should there be a God categorized as Tamasic? Do you have good reasons for drawing such a conclusion?

The Puranas don't say Shiva is tamasic, they say he is the presiding deity of tamas (which includes destruction and other things). Being the controller of tamas does not make you under the influence of tamas. Otherwise one could claim Krishna being the controller of maya was under the influence of maya. Shiva is sadashiva, or always auspicious. In Tamil vegetarianism is called as shaivam, contrary to the claims of tamasic activites. Shiva being a mahajana and great devotee of Lord Vishnu can never be under the influence of maya. By worshipping him with full knowledge we ourselves can become free from the influence of maya.

 

Foolish people worship him for material gain, not understanding his divine position. For them he destroys them while fulfilling their foolish desires, for it is said if you take a spec of dust from Mahadeva your dynasty will be destroyed. At the time of annihilation Mahadeva sees that another universal life has come to an end, yet still the conditioned jivas failed to take shelter of Narayana. Becoming filled with anger at these foolish souls he decides to destroy the universe.

 

 

I am also not aware that most people always eat Tamasic food and are into smoke, drugs and alcohol. Even for those who do, no rule exists which requires them to worship a God, Tamasic or otherwise. There is no link at all.

I don't know if it is relevant, but certainly if you take the world's population more than 95% of the people in the world engage in one of the above tamasic activities. Maybe they don't engage in all of them, but certainly the majority engage in one or more. For example, eating meat. Most of the world engages in this tamasic activity. I don't have any statistics, but I am sure more than 90% of the population. It is kali yuga, so we shouldn't be surprised that tamasic activities are prominent in the world.

 

Generally those who are tamasic have a particular svabhava that impells them to certain material qualities and activities, such as lust, greed, anger, etc. When one is overcome by these bad qualities, their motive for worship becomes polluted and they will tend to worship God or a god to satisfy their bad desires.

[Guest guest]

First of all Number 2, i do like to thank u for the reply and clearing my mind at some points and giving me new thought.

 

 

 

First of all you should start a new thread as your topic goes off in a new direction to what this thread is about.

well i do agree with u tht i should start a new thread on this topic, n i did in hinduism but they delete it, dont know why, may be they dont want to listen on it or they dont want to think. but if u see in spritual forum i hav placed my question in there as well.

 

 

 

Not all Hindus believe in all the practices. You'll never find any Hindu who believes or follows all the practices. For example a Vaishnava won't follow tantric rituals.

Well u know tht no Hindu follow all the practices. my question was n is tht why all hindus r not following the same practices. if we r hindu than we r hindu... why there is differences in practices. dont u think we should be procticing just one this which the hindu belief tell us to do. if not tht means tht the practices r human made n we should not follow human made practices. dont u think we hav catagorise our self by different gods n we r fighting on it, but why? do our hindu religion tell us to do tht. why there is differences in god? why shiva is greater or why visnu is greater or the other or other... but why. if they all r god than they should be equal....

u might know more than me.. but so far my study in hindu religion i never see any god disrespecting any other. than why we r fighing on it.

 

 

 

 

We are not a generation of one human being called Adam. That is an Abrahamic belief that is not credible. There are many religions in this world because there are many holy men who taught their path to God and they have many followers. If there is a disagreement with a holy man who founded a religion, then a new sect of the religion or an entirely new religion is born from those who disagree. There are many religions because people and cultures are diverse and different from each other. There have been many ancient religions before Christianity and Islam that have either died out or have been wiped out by others. The only ancient pre-christian religions that survive today are Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Taoism, Zorastrianism and Judaism.

why we not a generation of one human being, may be not named Adam. cause so far i know. Brahma made a purush(man) than he made a nari(woman) for him and the life of human being start from there. dont u know or my study is wrong. i dont think so it is just Abrahamic belief or anyother cuz it mentioned in hindu religion as well.

At this point u made me ask u tht do u think the religion is made by man(or holy man) cus u answered me that if there is disagreement with holy man than there will be a new religion. if so than we r just following humans not any God. or we can say than there is no God. or if u r saying tht holy men thaught their path to God. than doesnt ur answer say u tht there is just one God.

 

well i will discuss abt the other parts a bit later but u think of this on so far. i m short of time at the moment.

hopefully u will come with better answer. take care.