Shiva and Vishnu

[kailasa 0]

Hare Krisna sushil_kanoria!

Good example. When Kumara came to a gate of the spiritual world, them there and have not let. They thought that of anger is not possible(probable) there.

 

 

[Love 0]

Is it not a fruitless effort where we are trying to discuss who is greater, hoping that this way we get to read about some or the pther unheard verse from ancient texts? Are we not forgetting, that Brahma, Vishnu, Mahesh, Krishna. Rama, call Him whatever you like is the same power that manifests itself in various forms? Then, by even wasting our time on polemics and discussions about who is greater, are we not digressing from the actual path of realising the unity in diversity, of seeing that single Being in all things around us?

Cheers

Love

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

Originally posted by Love:

Are we not forgetting, that Brahma, Vishnu, Mahesh, Krishna. Rama, call Him whatever you like is the same power that manifests itself in various forms?

This is perhaps a faulty premise, as no one has established they are all the same. According to the Puranas, Brahma is a living entity who is born and dies. Mahesh and Vishnu are a different case, but still the Puranas speak of them as distinct personalities, each with their own separate abode (Kailasha and Vaikuntha). As Krishna says in the gita:

 

yanti deva vratan deva

pitrin yanti pitri vratah

bhutani yanti bhutejya

yanti mad yajino 'pi mam

 

"Those who worship the devas go to the devas. Those who worship the forefathers go to the forefathers. Those who worship the ghosts go to the ghosts. And those who worship Me come to Me."

 

It is not true that all paths lead to the same destination. That is a modern concoction of neo-vedantists.

 

[Love 0]

I think this shloka means something more than what it says. It perhaps means that the only way to find the eternal Truth is to take shelter in Him (at that time it happens to be Krishna speaking this for a very good reason that Vishnu took avataar to create an example on earth for people to follow). However, if you diverge from that aim you will not be able to achieve Him.

At the same time, there is a small story of a young boy who was pressing his father's legs at night when Krishna knocks at the door. The boy says that he cannot come to the door as he is pressing his father's legs and that is his dharma at the moment. Krishna says that I am Krishna. Yet the boy does not come to the door. In fact he asks for Krishna to wait till he finshes pressing his father's legs. So Krishna turns into a statue waiting for the boy to come and open the door. This story also tells us that if we follow our dharma then we will reach Him irrespective of our karma. If we can continue to evolve in our dharma we become nishkarma so that our karma do not bind us in our growth. Also, this story also tells the higher meaning of the shloka you quoted. The boy did not specifically tried to reach for Krishna. All that mattered to him was pitra-seva and he found God that way. I think it is not correct to read the sholkas and extricate the literary meaning from them. I feel Indian ancient texts are highly codifed texts so that one could not get the truth just by reading the vedas but by striving for it (Truth), one flowers to understand the meaning hidden behind the shlokas. One has to prove himself worthy of these shlokas before Saraswati Maa will divulge their secrets to him.

In the oldest of the vedic times as far as I understand there was a greater emphasis on Brahma than Vishnu or Shiva. They came later on than Brahma. This can simply be attributed to swings of changing times. However, this does not decide ever that who is greater than whom. Further, just as no one can say for sure that they are all same, no one can say for sure who is greater than whom. The reasoning works for both the same way.

Lastly, we all very well know that dharma has been defined as the path that produces Satya, Shiva and Sundar. Basically something that is not Satya, Shiva or Sundar cannot be dharma. If I put this question of hierarchy of Gods within me I feel there is something ugly about the whole affair where I try and place one entity before the other. So, I feel that there is something adharmic about even stating that Krishna is superior or Vishnu is the only one, or Shiva is only a demi-god, when there are many instances in ancient texts where two of the Trinity bowed before the Third one among them, praying to that Third entity that onle He can do something to save earth. Does this not give a very clear message that all of them are equal, nay all of them are same, it is only how this Supreme power manifests itself at any time?

[Guest guest]

I think before you argue as to who is the supreme, you should look at who was created first.

 

Brahma was created from the naval of Hari Vishnu

 

Vishnu was created by Mahadeva shiva in the Ardhnarishwar form(shiva & shakti united.

 

But who created Shiva?for he has no beginning or end!

 

Why then is shiva called MAHADEVA and no yag is complete without salutations to his name?

 

I think you should read all the scriptures before you draw your conclusions.Maybe you should read Shiv Maha Puran

[Guest guest]

 

Vishnu was created by Mahadeva shiva in the Ardhnarishwar form(shiva & shakti united.

 

 

This is wrong. There is no such statement in shruti.