RadheyRadhey108

I know that Indulekha Dasi Ji knows. She's not the one saying, "Lord Shiva is a demigod... Shaivas are pimps... Shiva and Shakti are whores..."

And, once again, where does it say, "Lord Shiva is a demigod"?

Once again, none of the verses say "Lord Shiva is a demigod".

None of these say that "Lord Shiva is a demigod". Provide a verse that states this.

Sry, I didn't know there was such a difference between Tulsidas Ramayan and Valmiki Ramayan. Why could someone not interpolate something and still keep the metre of the verses? People do it in song writing all the time. Once again, Srimad Bhagavata Purana didn't have any commentaries or copies earlier than the 10th century. Does that mean it didn't exist beforehand? Yes or no? If no is your answer, then that means that you can't prove that Shiva Sahasranam and Shiva Gita didn't exist before their copies and commentaries were written. You keep making claims, but you cite no references. You should really work on that. Could it be that Vishnu was his Ishta Deva, and that's why he put so much focus on him? It says that He is self-dependent. That means He is not dependent on Vishnu. Explain the actual verse, please.

When Rama worships Shiva, how do you know that Rama being supreme wasn’t interpolated? Where does Bhagavad Gita specifically say that Vishnu is supreme? Well, who knows which parts of the Vedas have been interpolated? How do you know sections of the Vedas haven’t been interpolated? Oh, but how can we be sure as to what has been interpolated and what hasn’t? Shaivas clearly did, since they aren’t Vaishnavas. So, you’re just going to cite something and not give a reference? The earliest copy we have of the Srimad Bhagavata Purana and any succeeding commentaries are from the 10^th century onward. Does that mean it didn’t exist before-hand? I was talking to a Gaudiya Vaishnava. They consider the Radha Sahasranam to be pranama. If he truly taught this, then why do his followers worship all deities? Since you are so smart, please explain this verse to me:To Rudra bring these songs, whose bow is firm and strong, the self-dependent God with swiftly-flying shafts. --Rig Veda 7.45.1

Your snippy comments didn't get to me. I realize that you can speak only from emotion since you have no evidence.

You're the one making baseless claims.

You say things without providing evidence. I'm just wondering where you get your ideas from. You haven't told me. Where does it say 'Shiva is a demigod who is less than Vishnu/Rama/Krishna'? What is the exact verse that says that all gods other than Vishnu are demigods? You clearly can't teach anything, since you obviously have no evidence to supply. Yes, that's because you speak solely from emotion on these issues.

Mahabharata still crumbles if you say that some parts are made up and some parts aren't. If we don't accept all of it, we might as well accept none of it, since we can never be sure what is true and what is false. You can't be sure that the 'Shiva is a Jivatma' verse that you [indirectly] cited isn't an interpolation and the verse that I quoted that says that Vishnu is Shiva and Shiva is Vishnu isn't an interpolation. Reference? I haven't seen strong enough evidence provided by you to prove that Advaita was originally solely Vaishnava. What are your acharya's interpretation of verses such as this one?: To Rudra bring these songs, whose bow is firm and strong, the self-dependent God with swiftly-flying shafts. --Rig Veda 7.45.1 I haven't studied the schools of Shaivism in-depth, so I'll take your word for it. Does Vishnu not contain Himself?

You are still only speaking from emotion. You admit that you have no proof. That means that you are speaking solely from emotion, which proves nothing. Shaivas will emotionally tell you that Shiva is absolute truth. Are they right? Shaktas will emotionally tell you that Shakti is the absolute truth. Are they right? You (a Vaishnava) are emotionally telling me that Lord Rama is the absolute truth without evidence to speak of. Why should I believe you over a Shaiva or Shakta, since you are all speaking solely from emotion and not from evidence?

I was looking back and saw it? No, it's not. It's his translation of this verse: http://srimadbhagavatam.com/10/47/60/en Do you have a different translation you'd like to share with us?

How do you know what is true and what is false in it? Do you think Gita is true? If so, why? If what you say is true, then how can you possibly tell the fact from the fiction? I'm sure that there are Shaiva gurus who have commented on Shiva Sahasranam, since most Shaivas recite it. There are many schools of Hinduism... there's a reason for that. Each views Brahman differently. The only verse that you indirectly cited says is that Vishnu is in the Atman of Shiva. Is Vishnu not in the Atman of Krishna and Rama as well, since He is Their atman? I don't see how that necessarily classifies one as a jivatma. Also, since you think it's been tampered with, how do you know that Shiva being a jiva wasn't a later addition (if He is truly called a jivatma). Well, which one do you think was the right one? Jeez... testy, aren't we?

They actually do have reason to believe that: When Lord Sri Krishna was dancing with the gopīs in the rasa-lila, the gopīs were embraced by the arms of the Lord. This transcendental favor was never bestowed upon the goddess of fortune or other consorts in the spiritual world. Indeed, never was such a thing even imagined by the most beautiful girls in the heavenly planets, whose bodily luster and aroma resemble the lotus flower. And what to speak of worldly women who are very beautiful according to material estimation? --Srimad Bhagavata Purana 10.47.60 I, personally, think that all of the Gopis and Radharani were incarnations of Lakshmi Devi, and, therefore, admit that I do not understand the verse in the slightest. Do you have an explanation?

No evidence, just emotion.