Shiva and Vishnu

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

> First of all, the puranas gave many

> instances of Vishnu accepting Shiva

> as Vishnu's superior and again of Shiva

> accepting Vishnu as his superior.

 

With all respect, this seems to be more your sentimental conclusions than

the actual statements of our scriptures. There is no instance where Vishnu

accepts Lord Shiva as His superior. In the Gita Krishna directly says:

 

mattah parataram nanyat

kincid asti dhananjaya

mayi sarvam idam protam

sutre mani-gana iva

 

"There is no Truth superior to Me. Everything rests upon Me, as pearls are

strung on a thread."

 

Furthermore He makes it even clearer when He says:

 

ne me viduh sura-ganah

prabhavam na maharshayah

aham adir hi devanam

maharshinam ca sarvasah

 

"Neither the hosts of Devas nor the great sages know My origin or opulences,

for, in every respect, I am the source of the Devas and sages."

 

Lord Shiva and Lord Vishnu are very dear to each other. Vishnu always keeps

Lord Shiva in His heart and Lord Shiva is always carrying Vishnu within His

heart. It is only us foolish followers who fight amongst ourselves. Lord

Vishnu performs many pastimes with Lord Shiva, not because He wants to prove

that one is superior over the other, but because He is so intimately related

to Lord Shiva. They are so dear to each other, that is why Vishnu performs

lilas with Lord Shiva. Lord Vishnu does not need to prove He is the supreme

Brahman, because it is established in all of the scriptures:

 

om tad vishno paramam padam sada pasyanti surayah

 

The supreme destination is Vishnu, and the Devas (suras) are eternally

looking to that destination.

 

>...Vishnu performed extreme penance to

>propiated Shiva when he could not

>slay the demons that were tormenting the

>good. Shiva appeared before him and

>gave him the 'Sudarsana' chakra, which

>Vishnu used to slay the demons with

>and which he bears in his hand...

 

Vishnu is the omnipotent Godhead. Your statement that He could not slay the

demons is childish. Sri Ramachandra Bhagavan killed 14,000 Rakshasas in

Janasthan with a blade of grass! His Guru became bewildered and asked what

about the astras I have taught you? Sri Rama replied I have no need for your

weapons. I am omnipotent and omnipresent.

 

It is due to the presence of Vishnu as the Paramatma that this universe is

existing. That is why He is known as the maintainer. If the Paramtma were to

leave the heart of the demon, the demon would instantly be imobile.

 

In order to glorify His devotees, sometimes God assumes the dependent role

and allows His devotees to protect Him. This is not due to His inability to

protect Himself, but it is due to His love for His devotees.

 

The Sudarshana Chakra is eternally existing with Narayana in the Vaikuntha

loka. You cannot seperate one from the other: chakra rupi svayam hari. When

Lord Hari descends to the material abode, His associates and paraphernalia

also descend and take incarnation. Just like Narayana's eternal consort,

Lakshmi. She appears from the churning of the ocean of milk by the Devas,

yet she is eternally residing with Narayana in Vaikuntha-loka. It should be

noted in this regard that in the Bhagavat Purana while describing the

appearance of Lakshmi from the ocean of milk, it first describes Narayana as

being with Sri Lakshmi prior to her appearance. This is because they are

eternally together. For His lila Lakshmi "appears" from the ocean of milk,

and in the same way Lord Shiva "gives" Sudarsana to Vishnu.

 

It is like the appearance of the Sun on the horizon. Intelligent people know

the Sun is not coming out of the ocean, it is eternally in orbit.

 

For more details on this you may read "Analysis of the Appearance of

Lakshmi":

 

http://www.indiadivine.com/art7.htm

 

 

> Vishnu is said to have worshipped Shiva

> with a 'sahasranama' (prostrations

> said to one thousand different names of a

> diety). For each name, Vishnu is

> said to have offered a lotus...

 

Lord Vishnu is always glorifying His devotees, just as His devotees are

always glorifying Him. Even higher than this is the actions of baby Krishna,

who carries His fathers shoes on His head. Who can imagine that God is

carrying the shoes of His devotee on His head. These lilas even bewilder the

great sages of Naimisaranya.

 

> In the Ramavatara, Rama worshipped Siva in

> the form of a linga before

> leaving for Lanka. This linga is

> worshipped as the famous 'Jyotirlinga' at

> Rameswaram, in southern Tamil Nadu.

 

In the Rama Avatara, Sri Ramachandra Bhagavan was setting the perfect

example of dharma. According to the smritis, it is the duty of a King to

perform the worship of Shiva before crossing water. It is for this reason

Rama undertook this worship.

 

> The great Madhvacharya, the founder

> of 'dvaita', broke away form the

> fold of 'advaita' not solely because he

> believed Vishnu to be superior...

 

Madhva's primary teaching is "vishnu paratamam", Vishnu is Supreme. In order

for Vishnu to be Supreme, He must be eternally independent (sva-tantra), and

everyone else must be eternally dependent (para-tantra). His opposition to

the advaita teachings was because he soley believed Vishnu was not superior,

but supreme.

 

> Vishnu is represented as being of dark

> disposition, lying down on a

> snake. Darkness, lying down and snake are

> marks of the tamoguna.

 

This is absolutely wrong. Vishnu's "lying down" is referred to as yoga-nidra

in the sanskrit texts. Please don't equate it with the tamas (ignorance) of sleep.

Vishnu's "snake" is an avatara from the Vaikunthaloka. It is Vishnu's own

expansion. It's nature is sat-cit-ananda. At least this is the version of

the scriptures.

 

> While Shiva

> is white, smeared with ashes, sitting

> upright, and is steeped in penance,

> all of which show the highest 'satvaguna'.

> The Bhagavad Gita may be

> reffered to for confirmation.

 

Lord Shiva is accepted as the guna-avatara in control of the tamoguna by all

schools of Vedic philosophy. It is a universally accepted fact established

in all of the scriptures. Likewise Brahma is the guna-avatara for rajas, and

Vishnu for Sattva guna. Just because Shiva is the controller of Tamas does

not mean he himself is under its influence. He is a liberated soul, not

bound by the influence of the modes of nature. Shiva's role in universal

management is destruction, and that is carried out by utilizing tamoguna. In

the same manner Brahma utilizes rajas for creation, and Vishnu utilizes

sattva guna for maintenance. Creation, maintenance, and destruction are the

three functions of the gunas.

 

J.N.Das

 

[R_Srisan]

RiG VEDA, Mandala One, 164, 46; [Rig Verse 1761] -

 

dram mitram varunamagnimahu-----ratho divyahñ sa suparno garutamana ;

eka sadvipra bahudha vada-----nyagnim yamam matarisva-namahuh.

 

"The One Absolute Lord is beyond infinite scope of superlatives; He is called The Supreme Experiencer Doer, Kind Lord of all, vast Lord sustaining and fulfilling infinity's infinitely infinite infinitudes, The Transformer as Fire and Death, Divine Spiritual Wonder, Guardian of Eternal Energy, Supreme One Absolute Person of Infinite descriptive names, referred limitlessly being so infinitely beyond Infinity."

 

==========================

 

Visnu and Siva are One and The Same, being different mellows, rasas, and lila pastimes.

 

The modern "Siva" is a distortion of Vedic "Rudhra"... and totally distorted by Dravidian deluge.

 

The Puranas are garbage, can't anyone on the path realize that yet !!!

 

But it makes good speculation cinema for tribal totemists.

 

 

 

[shvu]

Hello Srisan,

 

It interests me to see you branding the Puranas as garbage.Can you explain further ?

[Dasha]

Dear all

 

Srila Prabhupada explain in a purport of Srimad Bhagavatam (1-3-5):

 

"Lord Vishnu is nondifferent from the Personnality of Godhead. Lord Shiva is in the marginal position between the P of G and the living entities or jivas...........

Lord Shiva is not an ordinary living being. He is the plenary portion of the Lord, but because Lord Shiva is in direct touch with material nature, He is not exactly in the same transcendental position as Lord Vishnu. The difference is like that in between milk and curd. Curd is nothing but milk, and yet it cannot be used in place of milk."

 

Jaya Prabhupada

 

[shvu]

 

And milk cannot be used in the place of curds either. So that is not a good argument. Referring to Shiva as a demi-God has been another reason for people to reject Prabhupada's translation as biased.

 

The most oldest Purana known is the Vishnu Purana. Yet being Vaishnavas, the GVs will maintain silence about it and will never quote from it. And they know why.

 

Cheers

[shvu]

 

Oh yes...I almost forgot. For the 'Jumping-to-conclusions' types, those two paragraphs are to be read independent of each other.

 

Cheers

[sushil_kanoria]

Hare Krishna to all devotees,

Few months back I was reading one book "The teachings of Lord Chaitanya" where it is clearly mentioned, Krishna saying that no one including Brahma, Vishnu & Mahesh is greater or equal to me.

So there is no doubt that Lord Krishna is the supreme.

 

Hari Bol,

Sushil

 

[shvu]

 

Read the Shiva Purana, Skanda Purana and Linga Purana which say that Shiva is the supreme God and Vishnu is assigned duties by Shiva. According to that, there is no doubt that Shiva is the supreme power.

 

Since these 3 are part of the 18 major puranas, people who believe that Vyasa wrote all the Puranas should have no trouble in accepting this.

 

Cheers

[animesh]

It is surprising that in some of the puranas, Ved Vyasa has considered Siva as supreme and in some Vishnu as supreme. Are we sure that all of these 18 puranas have been written by the same person?

[shvu]

 

Traditionally yes. But, it is commonly accpeted now that the Puranas have a lot of Spurious content which was added by others alter, to promote their own sect. Since the Vaishnavites and Shaivites were the two prominent sects, each have their own sets of Puranas which they seem to have freely edited and made it look like it was all written by Vyasa.

 

The oldest known Purana is the Vishnu Purana according to which Vishnu=Shiva. Then later we got some Vaishnava Puranas where Vishnu > Shiva and some Shaiva Puranas where Shiva > Vishnu. Strictly sectarian stuff.

 

Cheers

[animesh]

I have read somewhere that there are more than 1000 puranas. Only 18 of these (at least original form of these 18) are said to have been authored by Ved Vyasa. The others must be latter additions.

[viji_53]

Dear shushil,

There are no verses in Bhagavat or BG where Krishna says He is Superior to Vishnu since He is an avatar Of Lord Narayana who is also called as Vishnu. In BG He clearly mentions He is everybody. He shows His Viswarupa dharshan only in the form of Vishnu with all gods to Arjuna. In Duryodhana sabha also He showed His Vishnu form only as Viswarupa. Do not create a feeling that Krishna is different from Narayana(Vishnu) to the western people. Krishna is an avatar of Lord of Narayana.

HariBhol!

[shvu]

 

The other Puranas don't hardly hold any value. I was referring to Puranas which are all part of the major 18.

 

Bhagavatam, Padma, etc.... - Vaishnava

Shiva, Skanda, Linga.. - Shaiva

 

Ironically the Padma Purana which is a Vaishnava Purana itself says in one place that Vishnu should not be worshipped because it will make Shiva angry! And apparently this exists in all the different versions of the Padma Purana.

 

Cheers

[animesh]

Hi Sushil,

More on what Viji ji has said:

 

If you read Bhagwatam, you will find that Lord Narayan(or Hari or call Him by any of His many other names) incarnated on earth as Krishna.

Krishna was complete incarnation i.e. He was Lord Hari Himself.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Read the Shiva Purana, Skanda Purana and Linga Purana which say that Shiva is the supreme God...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

Everyone is supreme within their own realm of control. Even in our own world of existence we can see this clearly. There is a mayor incharge of a city, a governor incharge of a state, and a president in charge of a country. Each one may be termed as Supreme when describing him in terms of his domain of control. But when you see the entire picture, each one is subservient to a higher control.

 

Vyasa's descriptions of Lord Shiva and Devi are in this context. Lord Shiva is maheshvara. He is the Supreme controller within the material realm of existence. As Shambhu he creates the entire material creation by interacting with Shakti. From this angle of vision he is the source and cause of existence.

 

But from whom does everything emanate? That is the question of the Brahma-sutras: janmady asya yatah. "From whom everything comes?" The ultimate cause of all causes is Vishnu.

 

The 18 Puranas are written for people influenced by the three modes of nature. Six Puranas are aimed at those within the tamo-guna, six for those within rajo-guna, and five for those within the sattva-guna. Srimad Bhagavatam is the spotlesss Purana situated on the plane of vishuddha-sattva. It is completely free from the contaminations of dharma, artha, kama, moksha. It establishes the fifth purushartha, Prema, as the ultimate goal of life. Sincere seekers should take shelter of this transcendental book, for it can provide us light in this dark age of Kali.

 

 

[shvu]

 

I may be wrong, but I believe that ISKCON teaches that Krishna is the ultimate and real form. Let alone Shiva, even Narayana and Vishnu are considered as extensions of Krishna! I can safely say that such a statement has no support from any Vedic text and also the Puranas.

 

Chandrashekhara Bharati of the Shankara line said, "You don't see the Lotus feet of the Lord. Why are you fighting over what his face looks like?"

 

Cheers

[animesh]

jndas ji,

Just one doubt. You have written:

 

Siva is the Supreme controller within the material realm of existence. As Shambhu he creates the entire material creation by interacting with Shakti.

 

Now my doubt is:

If Siva is the author of material creation, then why is Brahmaa called as creator?

[shvu]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>The 18 Puranas are written for people influenced by the three modes of nature. Six Puranas are aimed at those within the tamo-guna, six for those within rajo-guna, and five for those within the sattva-guna. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

This again is from the Padma Purana, which is a Vaishnava Purana. Naturally being sectarian, it calls all the Puranas praising Vishnu as Sattvic and everything else as inferior. Note that Vyasa himself never added a disclaimer anywhere in the Shiva Purana or Skanda Purana saying that it was only for Tamasic people. It is highly unlikely that he will write the Skanda (the biggest Purana) and then mention elsewhere that it is for tamasic people.

 

Another point to be noted that is that the Vaishnava Puranas say that only Vishnu can grant Moksha. However the Shiva Purana says that it is Shiva who is the granter of Moksha, thus creating clear contradiction. The only way to make all this consistent is to say Shiva = Vishnu. Or else, dismiss them as sectarian.

 

Cheers

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Another point to be noted that is that the Vaishnava Puranas say that only Vishnu can grant Moksha. However the Shiva Purana says that it is Shiva who is the granter of Moksha, thus creating clear contradiction.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

Each school of philosophy or upasana defines liberation differently. According to the Bhagavatam liberation is defined as follows:

 

muktir hitvanyatha rupam svarupenavavyavasthitih

 

"Liberation is giving up all external forms and designations and being resituated in one's constitutional eternal form."

 

According to Vaishnava texts, this type of mukti is granted only by Vishnu. Lord Shiva is able to grant other types of mukti, but to Vaishnava's that is not considered as "mukti".

 

One may be liberated from many things in many ways. Thus everyone can give mukti to some degree. Even we can "liberate" people. For example, give food to a hungry person, and you have "liberated" him. But it isn't actually liberation as defined by the Bhagavatam.

 

Different texts speak of different types of liberation, but using the same word. According to the audience and the process of worship, the results will vary. But they may all be termed as liberation to varying degrees.

 

To put an end to material suffering is one type of liberation, and Lord Shiva can very easily grant this to his devotees.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I may be wrong, but I believe that ISKCON teaches that Krishna is the ultimate and real form.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

I would change the word "real" to "original", though even "original" requires explanation, as it is not a case of cause and effect through time. All of the forms of the Lord are eternal. That form which manifests the full opulence of the Lord is the form of Lord Krishna.

 

[viji_53]

Dear jndasji,

Rama & Krishna are Poorna avatars of Lord Narayana. Whether you like it or not you have to accept that Lord Narayana is the Ultimate God. Only He can give salvation ie liberation from the ocean of birth & death. It was proved from Thirumizisai Azhwar's life story which you yourself has posted in indiadivine.com open page. Thirumizhisai Azhwar existed & his pasurangal are there as the proof. Other Azhwars pasurangal & temples still exist we have to accept that Lord Narayana is the ultimate God or Reality. Again & again we want to ensure that we are not against ISKCON. We only do not like the idea of creating Krishna as different from Narayana & making western people ignorant of Ultimate Supreme Narayana.

HariBhol!

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>If Siva is the author of material creation, then why is Brahmaa called as creator?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

There are many stages in the process of universal manifestation. In each stage there is a primary entity initiating the transformations that occur. It is for this reason that sometimes Durga is described as the source of the material existences, sometimes Brahma, sometimes Shiva, and sometimes Vishnu. Each one plays a lead role in a particular stage of creation. I will try to write a "synthesis of creation theories" later, but for now I will just briefly mention a few things.

 

The original creation is known as sarga, whereas the secondary creation conducted by Brahma is known as visarga, or recreation. Description of Sarga and Visarga are two of the Lakshanas that make a Purana.

 

These two categories of creation have been explained in our newsletter (Tattva Prakasha 1.6), so I will just quote from there:

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>1) Sarga - the elemental creation.

 

Sarga is defined as follows:

 

bhuta-matrendriya-dhiyam

janma sarga udahritah

 

"The elemental creation of sixteen principles of matter - namely the five gross elements (pancha-bhutas), the five objects of sense perception (tan-matras), the five knowledge acquiring senses (jnanendriyas) and the mind - is known as sarga."

 

The five gross elements (pancha-bhutas) are earth, water, fire, air and ether; the five objects of sensual perception (tan-matras)

are sound, form, taste, smell, and touch; and the five knowledge acquiring senses (jnanendriyas) are the eyes, ears, nose, tongue and skin. Together with the mind, these sixteen principles are created by the first purusha incarnation, Maha-Vishnu. Within these sixteen principles eight other principles exist subtly, making there a total of twenty-four principles of material

existence.

 

2) Visarga - the secondary creation.

 

Visarga is defined as follows:

 

brahmano guna-vaishamyad

visargah paurushah smritah

 

"The secondary creation by Brahma carried out through the interaction of the three modes of nature is known as visarga."

 

By manipulating the sixteen original principles of material existence and by the interaction of the three modes of material

nature (sattva, rajas and tamas), Lord Brahma carries out a subsequent creation, more properly described as an assembling of

universal ingredients.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

So the initial creation of Sarga is a creation of the elemental principles, whereas Visarga is the assembling of the elements into form.

 

Brahma's "creation" is to take the elements and follow the blueprint given to him by Vishnu.

 

 

Lord Shiva's role in creation involves how Vishnu interacts with the external energy (maya). Vishnu being nirguna does not come into contact with the material energy. Instead he "touches" it through his empowered glance, which is known as Shambhu (Shiva). From the glance of Maha-Vishnu comes a halo of light (Shambhu, or Shiva), in which all the conditioned souls are dwelling. This halo of light combines with the pradhana, impregnating the conditioned souls within the material nature. Shambhu is also the time factor, and this is why the pradhana is stirred into activity.

 

Prior to the influence of time, the material nature exists as the pradhana, or unmanifested modes of material nature in perfect equilibrium. There is no differentiation between sattva, rajas and tamas. When Shambhu enters, as the time factor, the material nature is agitated and the three modes become distinct. This stage of creation is known as the Mahat-tattva, or great truth.

 

Once the influence of time is present, then the distinction between cause and effect becomes visible. Thus you have a series of transformation of matter, from subtle to gross, which brings about the sixteen principles of material existence. This creation is known as Sarga (as has been described above briefly).

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Rama & Krishna are Poorna avatars of Lord Narayana. We only do not like the idea of creating Krishna as different from Narayana & making western people ignorant of Ultimate Supreme Narayana.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

This is the philosophical consclusion of the Sri Vaishnava Sampradaya. I respect their conclusion, and the bhava of their acharyas. But there are other schools of Vaishnavism throughout India which accept other forms of the Lord as the avatari (source of incarnations). The great poet Jayadeva Goswami, who composed Gita Govinda is one such devotee who considers Krishna the ultimate source of all avataras. He is not a Gaudiya Vaishnava, for he predates Gaudiya Vaishnavism. His Gita Govinda song is respected and sung throughout India by all Vaishnavas.

 

In Orissa, the Vaishnavas, though not Gaudiyas, consider Krishna to be the source of all incarnations. They even make deities of avataras, such as matsya, kurma, varaha, narasimha etc., with the face of Jagannatha - Krishna.

 

In the Vallabha Sampradaya (rudra sampradaya) Sri Nathji ( Krishna, the lifter of Govardhana hill) is considered the supreme form of the Lord. Their object of worship is Bala Gopala, and they consider Him to be the source of all incarnations.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Whether you like it or not you have to accept that Lord Narayana is the Ultimate God.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

Narayana is the Ultimate God, or in Srila Prabhupada's words, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Narayana is the same personality as Krishna, Rama, etc. When discussing a single person there can be no comparison of the individual to Himself. The only difference between one form and the other is what the Lord chooses to manifest to His devotees. According to Gaudiyas, and some other vaishnavas as well, the form of Lord Krishna is the top most manifestation of love, for it includes the parakiya-madhurya-rasa.

 

[shvu]

 

To say Krishna is the Ultimate is correct as he is an incarnation of Vishnu. However the statement 'Krishna is the source of all avatars' is to be taken with a pinch of salt. With a lot of salt actually, when we consider the fact that Krishna was an avatar himself and yet another fact that such a statement is is direct contradiction to the Vedas and the Puranas too.

 

Once there was a question about why Matysa, Kurma and Varaha also being Avatars were not worshipped on the scale of Rama. The answer was a fish, tortoise and a boar are simply not as interesting as Rama. Similarly Krishna being the most heroic and dashing of all the avatars of Vishnu, became the most popular. Then some people went a little farther by reversing the direction and said Vishnu himself is an extension of Krishna!

 

While there is nothing wrong with such sectarian beliefs from a devotional perspective, there is this small problem that it is distorting the original story. So much that some people have been led to believe that worshipping Vishnu will not fetch the same results as worshipping Krishna.

 

I must also add that the Sad-Vaishnavas [Madhva] do not have the concept of Krishna is the source of all avatars.

 

Cheers

[shvu]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>It's nice to see you figured it all out. Thouands of saints, sadhus and pandits throughout India for centuries just weren't able to catch the contradictions you discovered.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

Easy there; don't get upset. I said that it contradicts the Vedas as well as the Puranas. Not that it is stupid or silly or any such thing. Can you prove me wrong?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Good that you are in possession of the original story. Thats probably where the saints, sadhus and acharyas of other sampradayas went wrong. They couldn't get their hands on the original story.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

My source for the story is the Mahabharata and the Bhagavatam, which clearly says that the Supreme Bhagavan took birth as several avatars among which Krishna was one. If you can explain how Krishna is the source of all avatars, then I will take my statements back. For example, I have never come across something like Rama was an avatar of Krishna. I hope you understand what I mean here.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I agree that those who belong to the Gaudiya lines should take the effort to study other Vaishnava conclusions to understand their positions, but I would have to ask the same from others who are not Gaudiyas. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

Certainly. Every Sampradaya has something that is unique to it's own and not to be found elsewhere. I am not criticizing anything that is specific to any Sampradaya. However I can always point out something that deviates from the commonly known view which is what I have done above. I fully respect your position as a GV. If you begin to interpret everything as sarcasm, then there will be no point in discussing.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>It is the same Lord revealing His hidden qualities. The original qualities of the Lord displayed in full are those of Lord Krishna. When Lord Krishna covers certain qualities, he is known as Garbhodakashayi Vishnu. When he again reveals those qualities he is again known as Lord Krishna.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

I never said that Krishna is not Vishnu. All I am saying is that the name Krishna used the way you do is confusing. Your description still does not say why you use the name Krishna to describe the source of all. If you can show me something specific in the Vedas or the Bhagavatam or some such source, then I will take back my statement. If your source for this information is something else, then I was not debating that at all which makes me wonder why my statements upset you. I'll again repeat that I never said that it is incorrect to refer to Krishna as the ultimate.

 

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Perhaps you think too much of yourself.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

Since I don't know of any standard which can be used for comparison in this context, I can't say what is too much and too less. So I really don't know the answer. If you happen to have a way of measuring how much we think about what, you can let me know and then I can answer this to your satisfaction.

 

Cheers

[animesh]

jndas ji,

Thanks for the answer to my doubt.

 

One more thing:

I wrote that I had read somewhere about no. of puranas having more than 1000. That was a mistake. I should have written more than 1000 upanishads and not puranas. Sorry.