Shiva and Krsna

[sumedh 0]

Namaskar

 

 

 

I think, the whole concept, is hard to know through shastric refrences alone, since as you mentioned the "ego" thing is there. You did not quote Rudra Upanisha or Shiva Purana at all. I feel in these threads one side goes on mentioning one kind of scriptures to prove his side of the theory while neglecting the other. Krishna or Shiva can not be known just through reading.

 

 

 

Yes, these concepts should be known through the great acharyas. There are three well-known vedantic traditions (kevala-advaita, vishishtadvaita and tattvavada or dvaita) and none of them consider Rudra as Supreme including Shankaracharya -- though if one takes to a self-defined concept of Rudra as referring to Brahman then the case is different.

 

 

 

On the other hand if you declare Shiva Purana as so called "Tamasic" then you have to state why it is tamasic, since Shiva himself is above all the three gunas and is not bounded by them. The stressing of Shiva being sinful continuosly is offensive. Please Be careful of the reaction you may get. In other words, you are preaching Shiva as sinful in your enthusiasm to preach Vishu/Narayana higher. This is time waste and dangerous for spiritual life and progress. Hope you understand.

 

 

Thank you for your concern. However, i do not think you are familiar with what i think etc. As for the classification of puranas, it is already replied in this thread before:

http://www.audarya-fellowship.com/forums/krishna-talk/34478-shiva-krsna-5.html#82

 

Other than that whatever was written about Rudra was from the sruti itself and there was no speculation (either positive or negative) from my side.

 

 

Hare Krishna

[sumedh 0]

 

Read mandyuka. Turiya is the Self. Do not imagine the fifth pada beyond.

Is this the way you deal with objections to your (or whoever else's) interpretations? Anyway, as already explained turiya in mandukya refers to the fourth "pada" of Brahman.

 

Some people do not bend but they will break. What I cited earlier was from Rig Veda, translated as per Sayana for the sarawswati project. So, you now want to say that your mis-translation is correct:

 

Stu/ih ïu/t< g?tR/sd<!-- font-->< Æum! %?ph mm! -I n g< m& yuva?nm!>%/¢m! ,m&/¦a j?ir/Çe é?Ô/ Stva?nae =/Ny< te? A/Smn! in v?pNtu/ sena>? . 2-033-11

2.033.11 Glorify the renowned Rudra, riding in his car, ever youthful, destructive, fierce like a formidable wild beast; Rudra, propitiated by praise, grant happiness to him who praises (you), and let your hosts destroy him who is our adversary.

 

I repeat: The verse in Rig Veda is an Eulogy to Rudra. Same verse appears in Yajur Veda also.

 

 

You know, repitition hardly qualifies as clarification. Indeed the way you deal is quite strange, in that you do not try to address as to why something is a "mis-translation" rather pick out another verse.

 

This:

 

 

The Saraswayti project translation has been cited by me previouisly and like all your motivated translation this translation of yours is also simply wrong.

and this:

Yes. May Vishnu impel us to know Narayana.

 

 

 

are devoid of substance and thus ignorable.

 

 

 

Purusha sukta in Rig Samhita does not say anything of the sort. It is there in Uttara Anuvuka, wherein, it refers to Hiryanagarbha. And Hiryanagarbha is born of Rudra -- the Supreme seer.

 

 

 

Yes UttaraAnuvaka of Purusha sUkta appears in Taittreya Arayanka of Yajur Veda. And no, it does not refer to Hiranyagarbha. The 2nd verse says:

 

 

tamevam vidhvAnamrta iha bhavati

nAnya: panthA vidhyate ayanAya

 

 

Who knows Him in this manner becomes immortal in this very birth.

To moksha, liberation I know not of other paths.

 

And then the third:

 

ajAyamAno bahudhA vijAyate

 

Unborn, he appears in many ways.

</pre>

 

As for "agnirvai devaanamavamo viShNuH paramaH", itself indicates that among Devatas Vishnu is parama.

 

I am talking of paratpara.

 

 

 

That Rudra is a devata is known from various srutis like Rig Veda 7.46.1:

 

 

imaa rudraaya sthiradhanvane giraH kSipreSave devaaya svadhaavne

 

 

So your contention that the verse cannot be applied to Rudra is incorrect.

 

 

 

Give us one shruti showing Param Parastad for any oother being.

 

 

Are you being plain dishonest or what? The already quoted Maha-Narayana upanishad says that "yamantaH samudre kavayo vayanti"and that nothing is beyond Him "ataH paraM nAnyad" that He is Param Brahman etc. Then the mention of "hrIshcha te lakshmIshcha patnyau" shows that He is indeed Vishnu as known from the sruti "dEvIm VishNupatnIm ajUryAm" (Bhoo sUkta) and "MahIm asyEsAnA jagatO VishNu patnI" (Sri sUkta).

 

That Rudra is the same as Narayana is ruled out on account of various srutis like Shatapatha Brahmana, "na yasyendro varuNo na mitro vratamaryamA na minanti rudraH" (that Rudra does not fully understand savitR), already quoted Rig Veda 7.40.5 which says that Rudra gets his powers from Vishnu, the ambhraNi sUkta which says that Lakshmi makes anyone a Brahma, Rudra as She pleases and the source of her powers is Lord Narayana, the Mahopanishad which talks of birth of Rudra from Narayana and that he did not exist in the beginning etc.

 

It has been already established that all the Names primarily refer to Narayana, that Narayana gives His Names to all the devatas and so the srutis that extol Rudra as the Param Parastad should be known to be referring Narayana (as He is indeed referred to by many other Names in the sruti).

 

 

 

Rig Veda 9

saem>? pvte jin/ta m?tI/na< j?in/ta id/vae j?in/ta p&?iw/Vya> ,

j/in/ta¶erœ j?in/ta sUyR?Sy jin/teNÔ?Sy jin/taet iv:[ae>? . 9- 096- 05

 

 

Sama Veda XIX Soma Pavamana

1. 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 Vishnu.

 

Param Atma has no progenitor. I am sorry.

 

 

 

If you do not want to understand this verse or just try to mislead others then it is your problem not mine. This verse is referring to the Soma used in yajnas as sacrificial offering, and through yajna it brings the devatas to us.

 

That Vishnu is unborn has already been shown using various srutis, which simply shows that you do not care for sruti rather are just trying to search support for your position.

 

 

And as you have yourself said: Vishnu is Self born.The Self is Turiya --- shivoadvaitam.

 

 

Do you know the meaning of "sumajjAnaye"? Anyway if you want to keep discussing this then rewind a bit and establish your concept of "shivoadvaitam" from Mandukya first, or in other words address the questions above that have been put forward to the silly interpretation of Mandukya.

[sumedh 0]

 

That is precisely your problem dear Sumedh. You are a lover of God, no doubt, but you are an immature one. You have taken the Puranic concepts as the truth. The concepts are like addrresses to the home but not the home. The truth is beyond description and Paratpara.

 

Seriously, your way of dealing simply shows your eagerness to get some kind of imaginary upper hand. In other words such words from your side only sound quite silly and "immature". Anyway, this is the last time i am asking you not show "pity" on myself or any other "misguided" people.

 

 

The one who says "I" in everyone -- is he with a form or is he formless? Is He manifest or is he unmanifest? That "I", when manifest in full is all pervading Vishnu. That same "I" when offered worship is Rudra.

 

 

Please read these verses. One day the realisation will dawn that the being who is aware as the real "I" in you is the SELF. He is the seeing/seer/seen. These divisions as so called tattwas is for understanding and realising the ONE indescribale truth alone.

 

 

 

Just that your definition of "ONE" Brahman is quite different from ours. BTW i can say something like "Oh, i used to think precisely like you when i was immature and realized my folly and so blah blah..." (which is actually true), but is stupid in a discussion.

 

Haribol

[Guest guest]

 

Namaskar

Yes, these concepts should be known through the great acharyas. There are three well-known vedantic traditions (kevala-advaita, vishishtadvaita and tattvavada or dvaita) and none of them consider Rudra as Supreme including Shankaracharya -- though if one takes to a self-defined concept of Rudra as referring to Brahman then the case is different.

Really? Why only three? And what about the tantras and the agamas? What about the Rudra Sampradaya and the Nath Sampradaya? Do you think there were no NO great saints and God accomplished men in the Nath Sampradaya? Say the great Guru Gorakhnath? Or Bognath whos age is still impossioible to know? Do you really know something about the Indian spiritual culture and about he God realized saints apart from teh Gaudiya marketing? What do you think Lord Hanuman was Vishishta davaita or or achintya Bheda-bheda or tattwada philosophy follower???

Why can't we have a simple following of bhakti and see His lila in everything and see him in the heart of everybeing without getting lost in to these categorization that bring up walls of competition??

 

Also who do you think are the great Acharyas as you mentioned? Are there any besides the vaishnava lineages? Are there any great Acharyas in the Advaita lineages too? What about the Yogis (like the Trailanga Swami of Benares who lived for 300 years and was enlightened?) What abouth the Shiva bhaktas like Kanappa? And the great shakta bhaktas (like Bama Kshepa of Bengal? ? Do you know anything about them? What do you think about Goswami Tulsidas - a great devotee of Lord Rama - who got real darshana of Rama and Hanuman? Do you accept his authority and philosophy? He achieved God realization alright!

There is a whole great world outside the vedantic argumentative crowd here.

 

 

 

Thank you for your concern. However, i do not think you are familiar with what i think etc. As for the classification of puranas, it is already replied in this thread before:

http....

Other than that whatever was written about Rudra was from the sruti itself and there was no speculation (either positive or negative) from my side.

Hare Krishna

"it (classification of scriptures) is established in Madhavacharya's dvaita school well before gaudiyas. Sri Vijayindra Tirtha referred to it in his historic debate with Lingaraja." You don't follow the Madhavacharya's school for one. and even if you did, what was before that? If all Vedic literature, Upanishads, Puranas, tantras etc are tamasic, then what makes them so??

Again, it doesn't really matters what planet Krishna lives or not. It is more important to know what means you ahve to go there. If none and your are arguing about whether you want to go there or not, then this is irrevlevant. You made a comment about Turiya. What is Turiya? Do you understand this term? How? I would be more interested in knowing it.

I would be interested in your own experiences too if you have any. If all you can do is point to another book, then I can go and read it myself.

[atanu 0]

 

Is this the way you deal with objections to your (or whoever else's) interpretations? Anyway, as already explained turiya in mandukya refers to the fourth "pada" of Brahman.

[\quote]

 

 

Do not claim. Read Mandykya again. The fourth pada Turiya is the Self.

 

"Turiya is the Self" and "This Self is Brahman".

 

 

One has to realise that Self is Brahma yoni.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh Oh. Dear please apply the same noble thoughts to the so-called birth of Shulapani from narayana's tapas.

 

 

 

 

The I is Shiva. Only that much can be said. Rest, none knows what Shiva is not. Narayana knows Him alone.

 

 

 

tamiishvaraaNaaM paramaM maheshvara.n

 

ta.n devataanaaM parama.n cha daivatam.h .

patiM patiinaaM paramaM parastaad.h\-

 

 

 

vidaama devaM bhuvaneshamiiDyam.h

 

 

 

 

Om Namah Shivayya

 

[atanu 0]

 

 

 

 

If you do not want to understand this verse or just try to mislead others then it is your problem not mine. This verse is referring to the Soma used in yajnas as sacrificial offering, and through yajna it brings the devatas to us.

 

That Vishnu is unborn has already been shown using various srutis, which simply shows that you do not care for sruti rather are just trying to search support for your position.

 

 

 

You should know that even you are not born. Actually it is you who do not care for shruti. The verse says father of the earth, father of heaven. Father of Agni, Surya's generator, the father who begat Indra and Vishnu. What remains? Where from the yajmana is coming? Where the yagna is starting? If the earth, sun, heaven are not there where is the yajman?

 

For your hint: Soma is auspicious energy. He is Adiatma. He is Adiagnya (All from Rig Veda). It is you who is blinded by ego and refuse to see and think properly. This is aclled tamas. You are engrossed in ego since you do not even care to go through the verse of Yajur veda which I had cited.

 

Yajur Veda iv. 4. 8.

(Thou “I” art) all overcoming through Agni; self-ruling through the sun; lord of strength through might; creator with the bull; ---------.”

YV iv. 4. 9.

(Thou art) Prajapati in mind, when come to the Soma; the creator in the consecration; ------Çipivista when put in place;----- Aditi when put in place; Visnu when being taken down; ----- Rudra when offered; -----the heaven when arrived at completion.

 

 

 

Om Namah Shivayya

 

tamiishvaraaNaaM paramaM maheshvara.n

ta.n devataanaaM parama.n cha daivatam.h .

patiM patiinaaM paramaM parastaad.h\-

vidaama devaM bhuvaneshamiiDyam.h

 

Om Namah Shivayya

 

 

[sumedh 0]

 

Really? Why only three? And what about the tantras and the agamas? What about the Rudra Sampradaya and the Nath Sampradaya? Do you think there were no NO great saints and God accomplished men in the Nath Sampradaya? Say the great Guru Gorakhnath? Or Bognath whos age is still impossioible to know? Do you really know something about the Indian spiritual culture and about he God realized saints apart from teh Gaudiya marketing? What do you think Lord Hanuman was Vishishta davaita or or achintya Bheda-bheda or tattwada philosophy follower???

 

The Rudra Sampradaya is from Sripad Visnuswami. Sripad Vallabha and his followers claim to be in line from Vishnuswami and he has the Anu Bhasya commentary on Brahma Sutra.

 

Regarding the Nath sampradaya, their practise of Kundalini etc. are not to be found in the sadagamas.

 

Some (portions) of the tantras, agamas and pancharatra are accepted -- those that follow the vedas. Others like the left-handed tantra are not accepted (even a casual reading of these will show why this is so).

 

Yes, i know about all of those you have listed.

 

As per Balitha sukta from Rig-Veda (1.141.1-5), Lord Hanuman is told to be an incarnation of Lord Vayu whose second and third incarnations are told to be Bhimasena and Sripad Madhva (yadImanupradivO madhva AdhavE guhasantham.h maatarishvaa mathaayatI) in the same sukta.

 

 

Also who do you think are the great Acharyas as you mentioned? Are there any besides the vaishnava lineages? Are there any great Acharyas in the Advaita lineages too? What about the Yogis (like the Trailanga Swami of Benares who lived for 300 years and was enlightened?) What abouth the Shiva bhaktas like Kanappa? And the great shakta bhaktas (like Bama Kshepa of Bengal? ? Do you know anything about them?

 

Incidently Shankara himself dismisses pashupata, shakta and others (apart from Pancharatra) which were prevelant as being non-vedic.

 

 

What do you think about Goswami Tulsidas - a great devotee of Lord Rama - who got real darshana of Rama and Hanuman?

 

He is said to belong to the Ramanandi sect coming from Sripad Ramanuja.

 

This:

 

"it (classification of scriptures) is established in Madhavacharya's dvaita school well before gaudiyas. Sri Vijayindra Tirtha referred to it in his historic debate with Lingaraja." You don't follow the Madhavacharya's school for one. and even if you did, what was before that?

 

was in response to the allegation that the division of Puranas is a creation of gaudiyas (implying that it is a fabrication by them). As such the verses from Puranas that talk about this division are to be found in all kinds of Puranas (Padma, Matsya, Garuda, ) some of which have been quoted before.

 

 

You made a comment about Turiya. What is Turiya? Do you understand this term? How? I would be more interested in knowing it.

I would be interested in your own experiences too if you have any. If all you can do is point to another book, then I can go and read it myself.

 

Turiya has multiple meanings. In the context of Mandukya it means fourth (which is its literal meaning) and refers to the fourth of the chatur-vyuh manifestation of Lord Narayana. It does not refer to a "state" at all, at least in the Mandukya. See my response earlier.

 

As for my own experiences, i do not think they ought to be a subject of a public forum.

[sumedh 0]

 

 

Do not claim. Read Mandykya again. The fourth pada Turiya is the Self.

 

"Turiya is the Self" and "This Self is Brahman".

 

 

One has to realise that Self is Brahma yoni.

 

 

 

Since you are repeating things over and over without going to the points raised about your interpretations it makes no sense to continue this. Also you have inserted phrases like "Turiya is the Self" etc. without caring about what Mandukya actually says. It says "so.ayamAtmA chatushhpAt.h" i.e. this Atman is of four forms and then terms them as vishva or vaishvAnara, taijasa, etc. which are names of Vishnu.

 

That Atman primarily refers to Brahman is stated clearly in numerous statements of Sruti and is accepted by all Vedanta traditions including advaita. If that were not so then the Chandogya statement on which advaita is based "saAtmAtattvamasi" would mean you are the individual, an obvious statement and hardly anything to do with advaita.

 

You need to understand first that someone does not become Brahman just because his parents have named him Brahman or another one of His names. So are the names of devatas actually names of Brahman but does not mean that they are Brahman. Whether the name is referring to Brahman or to a deva is to be known from context.

[atanu 0]

 

That Atman primarily refers to Brahman is stated clearly in numerous statements of Sruti and is accepted by all Vedanta traditions including advaita. If that were not so then the Chandogya statement on which advaita is based "saAtmAtattvamasi" would mean you are the individual, an obvious statement and hardly anything to do with advaita.

 

 

 

 

 

Yajur Veda iv. 4. 8.

(Thou “I” art) all overcoming through Agni; self-ruling through the sun; lord of strength through might; creator with the bull; bountiful through the sacrifice; heavenly through the sacrificial fee; slayer of enemies through rage; supporter of the body through kindliness; wealth through food; through the earth he hath won; (thou art) eater of food with verses; increased by the Vasat cry; protector of the body through the Saman; full of light with the Viraj; drinker of Soma through the holy power; with cows he supporteth the sacrifice; with lordly power men; with horse and car bearer of the bolt; lord with the seasons; enclosing with the year; unassailable through penance; the sun with bodies.”

YV iv. 4. 9.

(Thou art) Prajapati in mind, when come to the Soma; the creator in the consecration; Savitr in the bearing; Pusan in the cow for the purchase of the Soma; Varuna when bound (in the cloth); Asura in the being bought;Mitra when purchased; Çipivista when put in place;delighter of men when being drawn forward; the overlord on arrival;Prajapati being led on; Agni at the Agnidh’s altar; Brhaspati on being led from the Agnidh’s altar; Indra at the oblation-holder; Aditi when put in place; Visnu when being taken down; Atharvan when made wet; Yama when pressed out; drinker of unpurified (Soma) when being cleansed; Vayu when purifying; Mitra as mixed with milk; the Manthin when mixed with groats; that of the All-gods when taken out; Rudra when offered; 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.

End of citation.

 

 

Yajur Veda iv. 4. 8.

(Thou “I” art) all overcoming through Agni; self-ruling through the sun; lord of strength through might; creator with the bull; ------- unassailable through penance; the sun with bodies.”

YV iv. 4. 9.

(Thou art) Prajapati in mind-----

Çipivista when put in place;-----

Aditi when put in place;

Visnu when being taken down; -----

Rudra when offered; -----

the heaven when arrived at completion.

End of citation.

 

 

[sumedh 0]

 

 

 

Yajur Veda iv. 4. 8.

(Thou “I” art) all overcoming through Agni; self-ruling through the sun; lord of strength through might; creator with the bull; bountiful through the sacrifice; heavenly through the sacrificial fee; slayer of enemies through rage; supporter of the body through kindliness; wealth through food; through the earth he hath won; (thou art) eater of food with verses; increased by the Vasat cry; protector of the body through the Saman; full of light with the Viraj; drinker of Soma through the holy power; with cows he supporteth the sacrifice; with lordly power men; with horse and car bearer of the bolt; lord with the seasons; enclosing with the year; unassailable through penance; the sun with bodies.”

YV iv. 4. 9.

(Thou art) Prajapati in mind, when come to the Soma; the creator in the consecration; Savitr in the bearing; Pusan in the cow for the purchase of the Soma; Varuna when bound (in the cloth); Asura in the being bought;Mitra when purchased; Çipivista when put in place;delighter of men when being drawn forward; the overlord on arrival;Prajapati being led on; Agni at the Agnidh’s altar; Brhaspati on being led from the Agnidh’s altar; Indra at the oblation-holder; Aditi when put in place; Visnu when being taken down; Atharvan when made wet; Yama when pressed out; drinker of unpurified (Soma) when being cleansed; Vayu when purifying; Mitra as mixed with milk; the Manthin when mixed with groats; that of the All-gods when taken out; Rudra when offered; 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.

End of citation.

 

 

Yajur Veda iv. 4. 8.

(Thou “I” art) all overcoming through Agni; self-ruling through the sun; lord of strength through might; creator with the bull; ------- unassailable through penance; the sun with bodies.”

YV iv. 4. 9.

(Thou art) Prajapati in mind-----

Çipivista when put in place;-----

Aditi when put in place;

Visnu when being taken down; -----

Rudra when offered; -----

the heaven when arrived at completion.

End of citation.

 

 

And this is relevant to discussion of "Atman" or advaita how?

[Guest guest]

 

And this is relevant to discussion of "Atman" or advaita how?

Why ask and discuss something you are not going to follow or believe ever?

Astu!

[Guest guest]

Hi

 

From what i have read, one must understand the 'oneness' of Shiv and Narayan. The reason for this is because Shiv is one if not the biggest devotee of Narayan. Therefore, in our humanly eyes, we would not be able to see any differences between the two.

 

Jay Shree Swaminarayan

Jay NarNArayan

[atanu 0]

 

Hi

 

From what i have read, one must understand the 'oneness' of Shiv and Narayan. The reason for this is because Shiv is one if not the biggest devotee of Narayan. Therefore, in our humanly eyes, we would not be able to see any differences between the two.

 

Jay Shree Swaminarayan

Jay NarNArayan

 

 

So those who see difference have divine eyes -- such as you have?

 

And I fail to understand why being a devotee makes one the same as the other to the human eyes? You must be using very evolved logic which escapes me.

[Guest guest]

"உலகம் யாவையும் தாமுளவாக்கலும்,

நிலைபெருத்தலும்,நீக்கலும் நீங்கலா

அலகிலா விளையாட்டு உடையார் யார்,

அவரே தலைவர்,அன்னவர்க்கே சரண் நாங்களே - கம்பர்"

The great Tamil Kavi Kambar commences his Ramayana with the above invocation at a time when such divisions as Shaivism,Sakthism,Vaishanavism, etc were there but without much sectarian fervour.Later days they have become more virulent.This also is God's Creation since it gives a "competitive Sprit" to the "Asthikas"."Loko Binna Ruchi" ;therefore all required in the mosaic of a society!

M S Venkataraman

[chinnathambi 0]

 

"உலகம் யாவையும் தாமுளவாக்கலும்,

நிலைபெருத்தலும்,நீக்கலும் நீங்கலா

அலகிலா விளையாட்டு உடையார் யார்,

அவரே தலைவர்,அன்னவர்க்கே சரண் நாங்களே - கம்பர்"

The great Tamil Kavi Kambar commences his Ramayana with the above invocation at a time when such divisions as Shaivism,Sakthism,Vaishanavism, etc were there but without much sectarian fervour.Later days they have become more virulent.This also is God's Creation since it gives a "competitive Spirit" to the "Asthikas"."Loko Binna Ruchi" ;therefore all required in the mosaic of a society,including "Non-Belivers","Rationalists" etc! That is why "Sankara" tried to wrap up all

"Believers" into a single file.As far the "Caste System" even Sankara could not do any thing as it also is God's Creation. However,Sanakara personally rose above all classifications and lead an exemplary life. The great Acharyas Ramanuja and Madhwa too have lead simple,exemplary personal lives.This should not be lost sight of!

M S Venkataraman

[Guest guest]

 

Hello,

 

I was reading into the website you attached and find the second offence contradicting: "Similarly, to think the names of demigods such as Lord give to be as good as the name of Lord Visnu-or in other words, to think Lord Siva and the other demigods to be other forms of God and therefore equal to Visnu-is also blasphemous. This is the second offense at the lotus feet of the Lord. " I was taught that the trinity (Brahma, Vishnu, Mahesh) do have different roles but are equal. Please clarify especially as I do not understand why Lord Shiva is being stated as being a demigod!

[Maha_Shiva 0]

 

Prabhu don't know who you are but I could tell you I was in exact same situation. Its like my mind was going in all directions. After a long time I realized {bit hard to put into words for me without expressing myself} anyway..

 

When I thought Shiva was Supreme I had this kind of hatred for Krishna in my mind. I could feel it coming into my brain. Kind of not liking Vaishnava's. This was after a devotee came to my house from Rudra Sampradaya, he gave me some beads to chant {not diskya}. I realized that people are attracted to Shiva not because of His Supremacy but because of his kindness. So the devotee who came to my house killed this misconception which was going to come into my brain in the future I am sure. Plus I had benefit of eating his Maha-Maha-prasadam. This I do believe brought me to my Diksya Gurudeva. So you see I needed the blessings of a devotee of Lord Shiva. Lord Shiva is very kind.

 

Lord Shiva I now believe holds special position. Unfortunality people misunderstand His power for Supremacy. He is dear devotee of Krishna. Serve Lord Shiva to serve Krishna, thats best way.

 

 

Wait A Minute I Am A Shivite And I Do Not Believe This Lie That Vaishnavites Say Shiva Is A Devotee Of Krishna, That Is False Because Shiva Is Krishna And Krishna Is Shiva, My Belief Is That All Avatars Are Of Lord Shiva Not The Other Way Around!

[Maha_Shiva 0]

I'm A Shivite And I Believe All Avatar's Are Of Lord Shiva, But I Also Believe Anyone Can Have An Opinion Or Worship Who Every They Believe Is Right Because We Are All Worshiping The Same Supreme Deity Of Who Ever You Call Him.

[zorba 0]

hey all of you are devotees or jnani sadhaks.

 

For a devotee such question will never arise as narad has rightly pointed out that bhakti is a ripe fruit which just implies that it is the supreme condition which is outcome of long journey.

 

You all seems to be naive as i think most of you have not tried out the path of yoga or sharmads ,path of shiva is also more like of sharmad and have directly jumped on to the path of devotion which is the difficult way as it is the most natural way of attaining moksha.

 

And on every forum i see ISCKON people ,is there any special reason for it.

 

love

[Brahmanyan 0]

Friends, I am rather disturbed to read the messages in this Forum. What exactly we gain out of this discussion turning into an arguement on Krishna vs Shiva. Tamil Sage Tirumoolar closed this kind of arguements by telling " There is one family and one God". There is nothing spiritual in arguements. This reminds of the famous saying of Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, when some one asked him where is God, He replied that he can't tell where God is, But He can tell that God is not there where people fight for the greatness of my God and Your God!

[sumedh 0]

 

Friends, I am rather disturbed to read the messages in this Forum. What exactly we gain out of this discussion turning into an arguement on Krishna vs Shiva.

 

It is very sad to see that any kind of shastric discussion is nowadays considered by some to be useless and counter-productive. Has vedanta come to this? One of the strengths of Vedanta is its preciseness, completeness and verifiability based on the "shabd pramana" and others, quite unlike other philosophies which are more or less just belief systems.

 

You people dare to call the endevours of our past great acharyas as useless. Kumarila Bhatta and Shankaracharya reject and defeat the Buddhist philosophy by use of logic, Shankara rejects pashupata/shakta and others giving reasons for the same, Ramanujacharya/Madhvacharya and so many other saints/scholars debate with advaitins exposing the many flaws in it and so on.

 

Vedanta is not a free for all arena where anyone can pass off his/her speculations as Truth and remain unchallanged -- actually such an approach would be laughed out in any other academic field, but somehow some people (sometimes even academicians of other fields) think that when it comes to "spiritual" then there is no need for authorities and start believing in whatever is pleasing to them. This may have been the approach of some other systems which have no tradition of logic, dialectics, polemics etc. but certainly not Vedanta which has a rich tradition of debates.

 

 

There is nothing spiritual in arguements.

 

And what exactly spiritual means?

[zorba 0]

Logic has its own advantages and disadvantages and as discussion can only proceed with logic it inherits all those weaknesses.

 

In earlier periods masters used to emphasize on satsang and less on intellectual discussions.

 

Maharishi raman has rightly said that "we have doubted so much that we have forgotten of our real self or brahma as that is doubtless".I quoted this so that i can bring out the futility of logic and discussion on scriptures.

 

Another incident from the life of ashtavrak comes to my mind when he entered the palace of janak and all pandits engaged in the discussion started laughing which revealed that how brilliant philosophers,well versed in scriptures valued and laughed over at the form and could not see the soul of ashtavraka which was illuminating not less than that of krishna.

 

So debate on any scripyure is good but of no use to a devotee.

 

Debate can prove something as wrong or wright but can not preceed existence.Existence and truth can not be affected by debate.

 

Om shanti shanti shanti...............

[sumedh 0]

 

Logic has its own advantages and disadvantages and as discussion can only proceed with logic it inherits all those weaknesses.

 

In earlier periods masters used to emphasize on satsang and less on intellectual discussions.

 

The advantages/disadvantages are...? Those earlier periods and those masters are... ?

 

 

Maharishi raman has rightly said that "we have doubted so much that we have forgotten of our real self or brahma as that is doubtless".I quoted this so that i can bring out the futility of logic and discussion on scriptures.

 

So discussion on scriptures is useless and by implication scriptures are useless. What remains? The authority of guru, sadhu and shastra has to be accepted.

 

 

Another incident from the life of ashtavrak comes to my mind when he entered the palace of janak and all pandits engaged in the discussion started laughing which revealed that how brilliant philosophers,well versed in scriptures valued and laughed over at the form and could not see the soul of ashtavraka which was illuminating not less than that of krishna.

 

You have changed the account to suit your flow of statements. Neverthless, their lack of knowledge was apparent in their laughter for they would not have done so if they had known the scriptures.

 

 

So debate on any scripyure is good but of no use to a devotee.

 

A false conclusion contradicted by the lives of all our past great acharyas.

 

 

Debate can prove something as wrong or wright but can not preceed existence.Existence and truth can not be affected by debate.

 

When you came to this conclusion, you had an internal analysis of why this conclusion seems correct. We make right and wrong judgements in every action we perform. Every field of study has a notion of right and wrong, for there is no study otherwise. Truth can be known only by means of right knowledge. What do want to say?

[Guest guest]

 

I think the greater danger isn't who you worship, but why you worship. If someone is worshipping Shiva for material gain, then he is a fool. But if someone is worshipping Shiva to be purified of kama (lust), krodha (anger), and lobha (greed), then Shiva will guide him in the right direction and give him all blessings.

 

I fully agree with you,

Any one who want to know who is Krishna and Shiv Mahdev.

Please follow the verdict of Supereme Court in India the case between Shiva Devotees and Ramanand sagar's Ramayan. When Ramayan was released Mahadev Shiv ji was shown as praying to Ram. Shiv Bhakta's felt offended and took the issue to court and Supereme Court appointed saintly learned scholars and studied the scriptures them selves and concluded that it is not only correct but fitting as per scriptiures.

To be Frank I see Mahadev's temple, I make sure I should go and bow down at his feets and take his blessings because he is Mahadev but my pujnia is Krishna and Ram.

Vyasdev ji wrote all veda's and Purana's. But in the last when he was not satisfied he was directed by Narada Muni to write nectar of all vedas and Purans which is Srimad Bhagwatam. So latest version of all puran's and veda's is Srimad Bhagwatam. So we should follow Srimad Bhagwatam. Because when ever you find a product in the market with instructions you follow the instructions but when that product is modifed and new instructions released you would not like to follow the old instructions because it will not work.

Please I am not trying to offend any Shiv Bhakta's but trying to prove don't waste time in arguing too much but be humble and accept what is right and wrong.

few comments:

Lord Ram broke the Bow of Mahadev to get married with Sita mata. If, Mahadev is supreme Lord Ram could never Brake the bow.

We should understand very clearly that there is no body above or equal to GOD! If, we undersatnd this all our confusions will go away.

Lord Brahma said in Braham Samihta that

Ishvera perma Krsna

sat chit anand vigrah

Anadir adi Gobinda

Serv karan karnam

He is the cause of all causes and cause of him self. We should conside Lord Brahma as an authority.

There are lot of other facts which we should read and understand with devotion and we will know who is Supreme. Not with arrogance and anger. Mahadev Shiv and Krishna! will reamin mystery for one who try to read Srimad Bhagwatm with arrogance.

Second:

People think that when Lord Ram was praying to Mahadev at Rameshwaram means Mahadev is supreme. But if, Mahadev is Supreme how com Ram killed Ravana. Who was blessed by Mahadev. Dongre ji Maharaj wrote in Srimad Bhgwatam that Mahadev even gave his consort Parvati to Ravana because Ravana asked for it but it was Lord Vishnu who brought back Uma devi to Mahadev.

Lord was praying to Mahadev because Lord Ram is Mahadev's east dev. So Lord Ram has to inform Mahadev that now time has come that I have to kill your devotee because he is following irreligion. But we think that Lord Ram is praying to Mahadev but in fact as a respect to his devotee Lord Ram has to follow vedic principles.

Mahadev gave boon to Bhasmasur and Bhasmasur first wanted to kill Mahadev only and no body could save Mahadev but Lord Vishnu.

So Please if, some one wants to Pray Lord Shiva let him and want to follow Shiv Puran does not mean the truth will change. It will never change.

SO THERE IS NO NEED FOR FIGHTING AND ABUSING EACH OTHER> WHO EVER IS ABUSING CAN NEVER BE A SHIV OR KRISHNA DEVOTEE> THAT IS SURE BECAUSE NEITHER MAHADEV OR KRISHNA TEACHES THESE THINGS>

JAI SRI KRISHNA!

[Guest guest]

 

You biggotted idiot. You have no respect for devotees of Shiva.

 

What respect you have prabhu ji.

Only thing I can say is Let Lord shiva teach you the meaning of respect. Give you some wisdom to understand Shiv Puran,

I am sincerely and seriously praying for you because you have to be humble in spiritual life. That is the first basic lesson of spiritual life.

So please find a SAT guru who can help you.

Hare Krishna!