Lord Vishnu and Lord Shiva

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna

 

Here is a quote from Vishnu Purana (5.33.46)

 

"yo harih sa sivah saksad yah sivah sa svayam harih

ye tayor bhedamati sthan narakaya bhave nnarah "

 

TRANSLATION: Whoever is Lord Hari, He Himself is Lord Shiva indeed.

Whoever is manifesting as Lord Shiva, He Himself is Lord Hari. Any

human being who mistakes both the Lords to be different, he/she

surely goes to hell.

 

How this is understood in Vaishnava tradition ? Please reply with

scriptural and acarya commentary support. Anyone knows, how Sridhar

Swami comments on this verse ?

 

 

Your Servant Always

Sumeet.

[Guest guest]

achintya, "sumeet1981" <sumeet1981> wrote:

> Hare Krishna

>

> Here is a quote from Vishnu Purana (5.33.46)

>

> "yo harih sa sivah saksad yah sivah sa svayam harih

> ye tayor bhedamati sthan narakaya bhave nnarah "

>

> TRANSLATION: Whoever is Lord Hari, He Himself is Lord Shiva indeed.

> Whoever is manifesting as Lord Shiva, He Himself is Lord Hari. Any

> human being who mistakes both the Lords to be different, he/she

> surely goes to hell.

>

> How this is understood in Vaishnava tradition ? Please reply with

> scriptural and acarya commentary support. Anyone knows, how Sridhar

> Swami comments on this verse ?

>

 

Sumeet, I have no commentary on the Vishnu Puraana upon which to base

my response. Anand Karalapakkam (is he here?) is a Sri Vaishnava who

might be more familiar with the text and how Sri Vaishnavas usually

interpret it. However, I can say a few things with the edition I have

(the critical edition published by H.H. Wilson):

 

(1) Shaivites frequently quote verses out of context to establish

that Shiva is absolutely the same as Vishnu. This is no exception.

This chapter describes the battle between Krishna and the thousand-

armed Baanaasura, who was aided by Lord Shiva. The Bhaagavatam

describes that Krishna fought with Shiva before engaging Baanaasura,

and that Shiva was defeated by Him. The Vishnu Puraana agrees with

this account - indeed, in this very chapter the Vishnu Puraana states:

 

harisha.nkarayoryuddhamatiivaasiit sudaaruNam |

chukShubhuH sakalaa lokaaH shastraastraa.nshuprataapitaaH || vp

5.33.22 ||

pralayo 'yamashoShasya jagato nuunamaagataH |

menire tridashaa yatra varttamaanu mahaahave || vp 5.33.23 ||

jR^imbhaNaastreNa govindo jR^imbhayaasaasa sha.nkaram |

tataH praNeshurdaiteyaaH pramathaashcha samantataH || vp 5.33.24 ||

jR^imbhaabhibhuutashcha haro rathopastha upaavishat |

na shashaaka tathaa yoddhu.m kR^iShNenaakliShTakarmmaNaa || vp

5.33.25 ||

 

A fierce combat took place between Hari and Shankara; all the regions

shook, scorched by their flaming weapons, and the celestials felt

assured that the end of the universe was at hand. Govinda, with the

weapon of yawning set Shankara a-gape; and then the demons and the

demigods attendant upon Shiva were destroyed on every side; for Hara,

overcome with incessant gaping, sat down in his car, and was unable

longer to contend with Krishna, Whom no acts affect. (viShNu puraaNa

5.33.22-25)

 

>From this account, several questions naturally arise:

 

a) If Vishnu Puraana says that Krishna and Shiva are the same Supreme

Personality of Godhead, then why is the Lord fighting with Himself?

 

b) If Vishnu Puraana says that Krishna and Shiva are the same Supreme

Personality of Godhead, why does it say that Krishna defeated Shiva,

making Shiva vulnerable to Krishna's "yawning weapon?"

 

c) If Vishnu Puraana says that Krishna and Shiva are the same Supreme

Personality of Godhead, why does it describe Krishna only as one whom

no karma affects, in contrast to Shiva for whom no such description

is given, and who fell victim to Krishna's yawning weapon? Two things

which are the same must have the same properties; this is simple

logic.

 

d) Baanaasura requested the boon of Shiva to fight with an opponent

worthy of his newly acquired power (the thousand arms given by

Shiva). If Shiva is the same as Krishna, then why didn't Shiva

himself offer Baana that fight, instead of cursing him that Krishna

would do so later instead?

 

If Krishna = Shiva, and this is really the conclusion of the Vishnu

Puraana, then the Shaivites should have perfectly logical

explanations for the above discrepancies. Try asking them about them.

If my past experience is at all predictive, then I guarantee you that

any answer you receive by the internet Shaivites to these very

logical and appropriate questions will be something to the effect

that you are a fanatic for daring to disagree with them.

 

(2) The verse you quoted is not to be found in the critical edition

of the Vishnu Puraana which I have. However, scanning back and forth,

I did find a similar verse which yours might be an alternate version

of. This verse is spoken by Lord Krishna to Lord Shiva at the

conclusion of the chapter. Here it is:

 

yuShmaddattavaro baaNo jiivataameSha shankara |

tvadavaakyagauravaadetanmayaa chakra.m nivattitam || vp 5.33.46 ||

tvayaa yadbhaya.m datta.m taddattamakhila.m mayaa |

matto 'vibhinnamaatmaana.m drShtumarhasi shankara || vp 5.33.47 ||

yo 'ha.m sa tva.m jagachcheda.m sadevaasuramaanuSham |

avidhyaamohitaatmaanaH puruShaa bhinnadarshinaH || vp 5.33.48 ||

 

Since you, Shankara, have given a boon unto Baana, let him live, from

respect to your promises, my discus is arrested: the assurance of

safety granted by you is granted also by me. You are fit to apprehend

that you are not distinct from me. That which I am, thou art; and

that also is this world, with its gods, demons, and mankind. Men

contemplate distinctions, because thy are stupified by ignorance.

(viShNu puraaNa 5.33.46-48)

 

Now, call me crazy, but looking at this verse as it is written, and

within the context in which it is found, it seems quite obvious that

this is not a specific statement of identity between Vishnu and

Shiva. Rather, it is a statement of the general "oneness" of things,

from which the "oneness" of Vishnu and Shiva is also understood.

There is a place in achintya bedha abedha for some sense

of "oneness." One could argue however, that the "oneness" spoken of

here is kevalaadvaita. However, I do not wish to get into that here,

as that is by no means obvious, and in fact it can be defeated with

many logical and shaastric arguments.

 

The point here is that Krishna is NOT telling Shiva that they are the

same Supreme Lord - rather, He is clearly telling him that there is

oneness between them just as there is oneness between Himself and

this world, the gods, demons, etc.

 

Thus, if Shaivites use this verse to say that one can worship Shiva

instead of Krishna because they are "one," then by the same logic,

they must conceed that one can also worship this world, other gods,

or even demons, who are also included in the list of things which

are "one." Will they accept it? I do not think so.

 

In my experience, Shaivites try to prove unsuccessfully that Vishnu

and Shiva are the same Deity. When this fails, they then try to to

give the same argument by using Advaita philosophy - Vishnu and Shiva

are the same because everything is the same. When they do that, you

can simply revert to anti-Advaita logic to refute them.

 

yours,

 

K

[Guest guest]

I forgot to mention - you have my permission to forward this posting

only to anyone via e-mail or other forums if you wish.

[Guest guest]

Haribol Krishna Prabhu

While i agree with the main intent of your argument, i feel that one of your

questions is untenable.

>From this account, several questions naturally arise:a) If Vishnu Puraana says

that Krishna and Shiva are the same Supreme Personality of Godhead, then why is

the Lord fighting with Himself?[Kizhakkemadam, Sriram N (MED)] When Lord Vishnu

descended as Srinivasa, he had a fight with Lord Varaha who was occupying the

present day tirumala area. So, one expansion of the Lord is fighting with His

other expansion and this is perfectly tenable as a divine sport. Therefore, the

same argument can be applied to prove Shiva = Vishnu (logically only).

Your servant,

k.n.sriram

[Guest guest]

Please accept my humble obeisances. All Glories to Srila Prabhupada!Haribol. Let

us look to Srila Prabhupada for the answer, he is so kind to give us his mercy

and guidence through his books although he is no longer here with us phicially,

he is here with us in his instructions. He lives on in his words. Jai

Prabhupada!

Srila Prabhupada writes in Bhagavad Gita As it is, 10.8 - "The Opulence of the Absolute"

 

aham sarvasya prabhavo mattah sarvam pravartate iti matva bhajante mam budha bhava-samanvitah

 

aham--I; sarvasya--of all; prabhavah--source of generation; mattah--from Me;

sarvam--everything; pravartate--emanates; iti--thus; matva--knowing;

bhajante--becomes devoted; mam--unto Me; budhah--learned;

bhava-samanvitah--with great attention.

TRANSLATION

I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates from

Me. The wise who know this perfectly engage in My devotional service and

worship Me with all their hearts.

PURPORT

A learned scholar who has studied the Vedas perfectly and has information from

authorities like Lord Caitanya and who knows how to apply these teachings can

understand that Krsna is the origin of everything in both the material and

spiritual worlds, and because he knows this perfectly he becomes firmly fixed

in the devotional service of the Supreme Lord. He can never be deviated by any

amount of nonsensical commentaries or by fools. All Vedic literature agrees

that Krsna is the source of Brahma, Siva and all other demigods. In the Atharva

Veda it is said, "yo brahmanam vidadhati: purvam yo vai vedams ca gapayati sma

krsnah.It was Krsna who in the beginning instructed Brahma in Vedic

knowledge and who disseminated Vedic knowledge in the past." Then again it is

said, "atha puruso ha vai narayano 'kamayata prajah srjeya ity upakramya."

"Then the Supreme Personality Narayana desired to create living entities."

Again it is said:

narayanad brahma jayate, narayanad prajapatih prajayate, narayanad indro jayate,

narayanad astau vasavo jayante, narayanad ekadasa rudra jayante, narayanad

dvadasadityah.

"From Narayana, Brahma is born, and from Narayana, the patriarchs are also born.

>From Narayana, Indra is born, from Narayana the eight Vasus are born, from

Narayana the eleven Rudras are born, from Narayana the twelve Adityas are

born." It is said in the same Vedas, brahmanyo devaki-putrah: "The son of

Devaki, Krsna, is the Supreme Personality." Then it is said:

eko vai narayana asin na brahma na isano napo nagni samau neme dyav-aprthivi na

naksatrani na suryah sa ekaki na ramate tasya dhyanantah sthasya yatra

chandogaih kriyamanastakadi-samjnaka stuti-stomah stomam ucyate.

"In the beginning of the creation there was only the Supreme Personality

Narayana. There was no Brahma, no Siva, no fire, no moon, no stars in the sky,

no sun. There was only Krsna, who creates all and enjoys all"

In the many Puranas it is said that Lord Siva was born from the highest, the

Supreme Lord Krsna, and the Vedas say that it is the Supreme Lord, the creator

of Brahma and Siva, who is to be worshiped. In the Moksa-dharma Krsna also

says,

prajapatim ca rudram capy aham eva srjami vai tau hi mam na vijanito mama

maya-vimohitau. "The patriarchs, Siva and others are created by Me, though they

do not know that they are created by Me because they are deluded by My illusory

energy." In the Varaha Purana it is also said,

narayanah paro devas tasmaj jatas caturmukhah tasmad rudro 'bhavad devah sa ca

sarva-jnatam gatah. "Narayana is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and from

Him Brahma was born, from whom Siva was born."

Lord Krsna is the source of all generations, and He is called the most efficient

cause of everything. He says that because "everything is born of Me, I am the

original source of all. Everything is under Me; no one is above Me." There is

no supreme controller other than Krsna. One who understands Krsna in such a way

from a bona fide spiritual master and from Vedic literature, who engages all his

energy in Krsna consciousness, becomes a truly learned man. In comparison to

him, all others, who do not know Krsna properly, are but fools. Only a fool

would consider Krsna to be an ordinary man. A Krsna conscious person should not

be bewildered by fools; he should avoid all unauthorized commentaries and

interpretations on Bhagavad-gita and proceed in Krsna consciousness with

determination and firmness.

....

SO very clearly Krsna says, 'narayanah paro devas tasmaj jatas caturmukhah

tasmad rudro 'bhavad devah sa ca sarva-jnatam gatah'. "Narayana is the Supreme

Personality of Godhead, and from Him Brahma was born, from whom Siva was born."

In closing, we can say that Lord Visnu and Lord Siva, as well as Lord Brama are

one in the same in ESSENCE but not in QUALITY, just as the son is of the same

essence as the father.

Hare Krsna.-Madhumangala dasa

[Guest guest]

For those who have read Krishna Susarla's response to the following query, I'm

sorry that before I saw his post I also wrote much of what he already observed;

anyway, here's my reply.

 

> On Sun, 28 Dec 2003, sumeet1981 wrote:

> > Here is a quote from Vishnu Purana (5.33.46)

> >

> > "yo harih sa sivah saksad yah sivah sa svayam harih

> > ye tayor bhedamati sthan narakaya bhave nnarah "

> >

> > TRANSLATION: Whoever is Lord Hari, He Himself is Lord Shiva indeed.

> > Whoever is manifesting as Lord Shiva, He Himself is Lord Hari. Any

> > human being who mistakes both the Lords to be different, he/she

> > surely goes to hell.

> >

> > How this is understood in Vaishnava tradition ? Please reply with

> > scriptural and acarya commentary support. Anyone knows, how Sridhar

> > Swami comments on this verse ?

 

 

I don't know of any Gaudiya Vaisnava commentary on the Visnu Purana, nor do I

have access to Madhva's or Ramanuja's tikas at the moment. However, neither can

I provide Sridharasvami's comments either, but only because the above verse

isn't Visnu Purana text 5.33.46, at least not in both of my editions.* Each one

gives another verse instead, while neither contains the above verse.

 

That said, there are some statements that somewhat resemble the incorrect

Sanskrit transliteration given above. The context of the passage involves

Krsna's instructions to lord Siva regarding the latter's destructive boon to

Banasura.

 

Significantly, the closest thing to the above verse, is Krsna's following

comment (VP 5.33.47-48):

 

tvayA yad abhayaM dattaM tad dAnaM akhilaM mayA |

matto 'vibhinnam AtmAnaM draSTum arhasi zaGkara ||

 

"Whatever fearlessness was given by you is wholly a gift from Me.

O Sankara, you're fit to see that you yourself are not apart from Me."

 

 

yo 'haM sa tvaM jagac cedaM sa-devAsura-mAnuSam |

avidyA-mohitAtmAnaH puruSA bhinna-darzanaH ||

 

"What I am, you are--as well as the universe with its gods, demons, and men.

Those who are bewildered by ignorance see with separate vision."

 

 

Sridharasvamin's only remark for this and all following verses in the chapter is

that "matto vibhinnam" means "chedah," or "cut off,from Me" (mattaH, i.e.,

from Krsna). The word "cheda" (splitting) implies a conflict of interest or

even deliberate separatism. That is, one should not try to be independent of

the Lord.

 

Moreover, Krsna explicitly mentions that not only lord Siva, but the demigods,

demons, and humans--everything in the universe--are also nondifferent from

Himself. Of course, this also simply reiterates what Krsna says in Gita,

18.20-22. It doesn't establish any unique equality with Vishnu for Siva.

 

Clearly, Krsna's emphasis is that no one--and no thing--is autonomous or truly

separate from Him, including Siva. To demonstrate the ultimate harmony that

exists between the Lord and all his servants, as well as to fortify the

authority He so invests in lord Siva, Krsna even agreed to respect Siva's

problematic benediction to Bana. Then Krsna resolved Banasura's situation by

His own perfect intelligence.

 

I would say the purport is that no one should be divisive or independent, for

that only cuts one off from Krsna's mercy, one's own welfare. Separatism is an

unhealthy condition among those bewildered by ignorance.

 

The logic here also seems fairly analogous to that of "saksad dharitvena

samasta-sastraih uktas tatha bhavyata eva sadbhih, kintu prabhor yah priya eva

tasya" (the Lord's representatives are nondifferent from the Lord because of

being dear to Him, and all authorities uphold this widely recognized principle).

 

I hope this clarifies things.

 

MDd

 

 

*

1)

Upreti, Thanezacandra, ed. 1987. _viSNu-purANam:

zrIdharasvAmi-kRtAtma-prakAzAvyAkhyayA bhUSitam_. DillI: Parimala. (in

Sanskrit)

 

2)

Gupta, MunilAla, trans. 1993 _zrIzrIviSNupurANa_. Gorakhapura: gItA-presa

[aditya]

the same krishna in the same mahabharata quotes the imp of shiva in anushasana parva and even constructs shivasahasranama....and the same vishnu offers his lotus eyes to shiva and gets the name padmaksha......

[Tantrayoga]

 

All Vedic literature agrees

that Krsna is the source of Brahma, Siva and all other demigods.

 

When Prabhupada (PBUH), says " .. all other DEMIGODS like SHIVA..." doesn't he contradict both Lord Shiva and Krsna? And Lord Shiva and Krsna are a much much higher authority than Prabhupada!! Would you agree??

[Tantrayoga]

 

the same krishna in the same mahabharata quotes the imp of shiva in anushasana parva and even constructs shivasahasranama....and the same vishnu offers his lotus eyes to shiva and gets the name padmaksha......

 

So true Aditya ji.

But that part is always ignored sadly. Its a mockery when you accept one thing said by the Lord at one place, but totally ignore when He Himself speaks on another occasion. As Shri Chaitanya said "In this age of hypocrisy ... "

[Arjuna Haridas]

To quote myself:

 

 

Few Vaishnavas realize that Krishna is the equivalent to Shiva of Shaivism and that Radha is equivalent to Devi of Shaktism. Krishna is Brahman and Radha is Shakti; both are equal and are two aspects of the Divine. The Vaishnava knows this, but unfortunately the Vaishnava associated the Supreme Lord Krishna as the equal with Vishnu. In reality, it's more like:

 

Bhagavan Krishna

 

 

Radharani

Devi

Durga

Kali

etc.

 

Brahma

Vishnu

Matsya

Kurma

Varaha

etc.

Shiva

Krishna (Brahman) incarnates as the Trimurti Who in turn incarnate as Matsya, etc.

 

Radha (Shakti) incarnates as Devi Who in turn incarnates as Durga Maa, Dasmahavidyas, etc.

 

This is why Vaishnavism IS Shaivism and the two ARE Shaktism. It is because the 3 sects are just one, but they give different names to Brahman-Shakti, the Supreme Divine. Unfortunately, only the Smartas realize this and so we have blatent sectarianism between Vaishnavas and Shaivas that manifest themselves in the various denominations of the two religions.

[JayaMahaDevi]

God may have many forms such as Maa, Shiva, Krishna, Vishnu, etc. But ALL forms are emanations of one divine soul... So why should we see ANYTHING as seperate. The divine soul in fact has no name, gender, forms until it manifests through Shakti. So why argue about this god being seperate from that god, and that this path is higher than that path. That is all futile arguments. All have god as a divine spark within them, and through that personal spark they can go back to the source. Shiva is God's destructive personality as Vishnu is the personality the preserves... But in the end, they are all indeed one in the same. Seeing everything as seperate will also keep YOU seperate from God, and it is also the reason why people must see themselves as distinct from each other through paths, creeds, classes, castes, genders, etc. Yes we all have minor differences but we are all gods children. And all emanations of God are infact all connected to one divine source. I choose to worship that as Maha Devi Mata, but does that make me any different from someone who worships Shiva or someone who worships Krishna? Only by the name we are calling out in our prayers in the images we choose to see as the form of our beloved.

[JayaMahaDevi]

Let us look at the image of Hari Hara...

[tackleberry]

 

God may have many forms such as Maa, Shiva, Krishna, Vishnu, etc. But ALL forms are emanations of one divine soul... So why should we see ANYTHING as seperate. The divine soul in fact has no name, gender, forms until it manifests through Shakti. So why argue about this god being seperate from that god, and that this path is higher than that path.

 

If it were that simple, every scripture would've so declared in no uncertain terms. The fact that it doesn't proves otherwise. Nor is it illogical to consider every god as distinct. We do consider every human as distinct, don't we? We don't observe all objects and entities as one, we do perceive differences between various objects such as a table, chair etc. So why is it so hard to consider that every god is distinct?

[Baobabtree]

 

So why is it so hard to consider that every god is distinct?

 

Perhaps because Rig Veda 1:164:46 declares

 

 

46 They call him Indra, Mitra, Varuṇa, Agni, and he is heavenly nobly-winged Garutmān.

To what is One, sages give many a title they call it Agni, Yama, Mātariśvan.

 

[JayaMahaDevi]

 

If it were that simple, every scripture would've so declared in no uncertain terms. The fact that it doesn't proves otherwise. Nor is it illogical to consider every god as distinct. We do consider every human as distinct, don't we? We don't observe all objects and entities as one, we do perceive differences between various objects such as a table, chair etc. So why is it so hard to consider that every god is distinct?

 

I do not see anything as REALLY distinct. It is only distinct through the play of Maya. But when you see reality you will see all things in existence as one.

[new---new]

 

Perhaps because Rig Veda 1:164:46 declares

 

 

 

here's one of my posts from another forum........ hope it clarifies the rigvedic declaration........

 

 

when scriptures say that at first vishnu was lying on the great ocean (read ocean=consciousness,visnu = vishwa(universe)+ anu(atom) i.e one that permeades every atom of the universe = SPACE)... lying on sesh......(sesh mathamatically means remainder ....I.E REMAINDER OF KARMAS WHICH MAKES SOULS TO BE BORN.(in vishnu===in space).....(SESH IS TAMASIC)...... now from visnu's navel a lotus springs up and from lotus bhrama is born .....bhrama is the first indiavidual in space (duality has arrived)....... now bhrama is troubled by the two demons madhu(means too much ) and kaitabh(too little ) ie excess of indulgence and desire for more indulgence (what he has is perceived to be too little).........bhrama is the first fallen soul (according to prabhupada when a soul falls he first becomes bhrama).........now vishnu is god of maintainence because ... a world of duality can only exist(MAINTAINED)only in SPACE and TIME..............BHRAMA is the god of creation because the world exists only relatively (percieved by bhrama who see himself to be seperate from space(visnnu) and time(shiva,ie kala,ie maha kala) ........ now bhrama is the the lord of creation falls for saraswati his own daughter (saraswati is knowledge(GODDESS OF )(I.E ...RELATIVE KNOWLEDGE)....... saraswati is said to be bhramas daughter because she is born of him ....I.E. she is not created by vishnu(space) or time (kala ,shiva).......BOTTOM LINE = RELATIVE KNOWLEDGE IS BORN OF "THE KNOWER"..........

 

now shiva the god of destruction is a state where the difference between the perciever ,the percieved and perception ....is lost

(those who really want to understand please read the "tripura rahasya.".......if you manage to understand it you will be very pissed to find out what you do ...it is an advaitic and a sakta text)..........

 

shiva is a state of monoism .....the scriptures say that there is no such thing as shiva and soul for where there is a soul shiva is not and where there is shiva there is no soul(duality ie the difference between the perciever and the percieved is lost)...it is the state of advaitic moksh or buddhist nirvana........it is beyond duality .....of existance and non existance............it is in this context that the statement (EKAM BHARM DWITIYA NASTI........is to be understood ..........EKAM BHRAM...ETC......DOES NOT MEAN THERE IS ONE GOD ...........IT MEANS THERE IS ONLY "ONE".......call this "ONE" as god or bhram or parabhram or WHATEVER.........but where this "ONE" exists there is no other .........

 

 

also the superiority of one god over the other is relative superiority of one tattva over other ........when scripture say that shiva is supreme because neither vishnu or bhrama could find his beginning or end ........it means THE STATE OF SHIVAHOOD CANNOT BE PERCIEVED,OR KNOWN IN SPACE(vishnu)OR BY BHRAMA(relative knower)....BECAUSE WHERE THERE IS SHIVA THERE IS NO OTHER ............... WHEN SCRIPTURES SAY THAT VISHNU IS SUPREME ...IT IS INDEED TRUE BECAUSE WHERE THERE IS PERCEPTION OF VISHNU(space..in a duality world) ....THERE IS NO SHIVA.(state of oneness)................

 

AGAIN THE SCRIPTURES AT TIMES TALK ABOUT VISHNU AS space TATTVA and at other time as PARABHRAM .............at times they talk about SHIVA ..as TIME tattva ...and at other times as parabhram.......................all statement of scriptures are true when understood in the right context........but in this day and age people have neither time nor inclination to research everything ....

 

 

PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT THE ABOVE INTERPRETATION OF THE SCRIPTURES IS BASED ON THE INTERPRETATION ACCORDING TO THE "TATTAVAS"but there are many interpretations....based on jnana,bhakti,mantras,tantras,yagnas,kriyas(for kriya yogis).......etc......

 

 

 

the rishis who wrote the scriptures were GENIOUS....

 

but as JALALUDDIN RUMI ... the sufi mystic would say ......"we have all said and heard ..but as for the way to go Words are no prepration........

 

 

so everyone ..lets stop fighting ....just do your daily practice ..follow the rules ..and follow your guru....walking the path will reveal the truth through experience ..and then you would need no theory..........

[new---new]

JayaMahaDevi...

I cant reply to your PM as i have less than 30 posts as of now ..which is the min requirement to post a PM .... but you can find Tripura Rahasya... jnana khand online in english ... if u just google it you will find .....the jnana khand only explains the philosophy ...........the actual practices involved to reach that state.... are not available as with most tantras.......at best it serves as a good mental exercise .......but not of much practical value.........

 

as far as the several levels of interpretations of scriptures are concerned ......one can get a better understanding if one considers different interpretations of gita ..... jnana and bhakti interpretations are common ....what completely blew me away was the kriya yogic interpretation .......which equates the 5 pandavas with the 5 chakras ... arjun being the swahistana the naval chakra .......and how activating it was paramount to free flow of kundilini.............

 

and again when we consider the devi mahatmaya ... the kunjika strotra which contains the navarn mantra ......and as i was reading through some of the tantra practices .....i realized that the navarn mantra is associated with swahistana chakra............about the kunjika it is said that it is the key to the devi mahatmaya ............and the similarity becomes apparent...............

 

theres a lot i can speak about ...but i dont even know where to start ........if there is anything specific that you are looking for then i can perhaps point to the sources........

[JayaMahaDevi]

You are wise. Yesterday I read more than half of the Tripura Rahasya and it confirmed many things I had found as "truth" in my own searching. I realize the practices are not available, but my Guru is a Samrat of Tantra, and I without a doubt know that he probably knows them.

 

I would love to speak with you more. I will send ways to communicate with me online to you privately.

 

 

JayaMahaDevi...

I cant reply to your PM as i have less than 30 posts as of now ..which is the min requirement to post a PM .... but you can find Tripura Rahasya... jnana khand online in english ... if u just google it you will find .....the jnana khand only explains the philosophy ...........the actual practices involved to reach that state.... are not available as with most tantras.......at best it serves as a good mental exercise .......but not of much practical value.........

 

as far as the several levels of interpretations of scriptures are concerned ......one can get a better understanding if one considers different interpretations of gita ..... jnana and bhakti interpretations are common ....what completely blew me away was the kriya yogic interpretation .......which equates the 5 pandavas with the 5 chakras ... arjun being the swahistana the naval chakra .......and how activating it was paramount to free flow of kundilini.............

 

and again when we consider the devi mahatmaya ... the kunjika strotra which contains the navarn mantra ......and as i was reading through some of the tantra practices .....i realized that the navarn mantra is associated with swahistana chakra............about the kunjika it is said that it is the key to the devi mahatmaya ............and the similarity becomes apparent...............

 

theres a lot i can speak about ...but i dont even know where to start ........if there is anything specific that you are looking for then i can perhaps point to the sources........

[eeshwar]

Lord Shiva is different from lord rudra, lord maheshwara and lord shankara. He is the lord of pancha brahmas .He is attributeless and has no form that's he is worshipped in a linga(symbol) form thats why this form is called "aroopa roopi".Plz if you don't know about infinite sadashiva then try to know about Lord shiva.

 

Om Namah Shivaya

[eeshwar]

:rolleyes2:

Plz try to know who is rudra ,shankara,maheshwara.The Lord shiva is beyond the pancha brahmas like brahma,vishnu,rudra,shankara,maheshwara .He (Shiva) is maintains or runs this infinite universe by five activities (srishti,sthiti,laya,thirodhaanam and anugraham) done by pancha brahmas.Pancha brahmas are equally powerfull but it is SadaShiva who is beyond pancha brahmas.

 

That's why there is a panchakshari maha mantra which is ruling the universe.

 

Plz try to know this ,then post thread.

 

Jai Mahadev

[kbdas]

Yes, There is Sadashiva, Sankarshan etc. I think the Gita verse commentary concerning Shiva being born from Brahma does not refer to these expansions. Even among Vaishvavas is not Mahesh-Dham above Brahmloka? Correct if I am wrong. Thanks. Always an iteresting topic to me. Srila Sridhar Maharaj discussed this from time to time, must find the recordings.

[Chris Fatels]

I do not see anything as REALLY distinct. It is only distinct through the play of Maya. But when you see reality you will see all things in existence as one.

yes, everything we see is one! it´s all vibrations, and the fact that it looks distinct is because of our senses. our body is not who we are. what we do with the vehicle is what we are, we are the actions we take!

[Mothman]

 

achintya, "sumeet1981" <sumeet1981> wrote:

> Hare Krishna

>

> Here is a quote from Vishnu Purana (5.33.46)

>

> "yo harih sa sivah saksad yah sivah sa svayam harih

> ye tayor bhedamati sthan narakaya bhave nnarah "

>

> TRANSLATION: Whoever is Lord Hari, He Himself is Lord Shiva indeed.

> Whoever is manifesting as Lord Shiva, He Himself is Lord Hari. Any

> human being who mistakes both the Lords to be different, he/she

> surely goes to hell.

>

> How this is understood in Vaishnava tradition ? Please reply with

> scriptural and acarya commentary support. Anyone knows, how Sridhar

> Swami comments on this verse ?

>

 

Sumeet, I have no commentary on the Vishnu Puraana upon which to base

my response. Anand Karalapakkam (is he here?) is a Sri Vaishnava who

might be more familiar with the text and how Sri Vaishnavas usually

interpret it. However, I can say a few things with the edition I have

(the critical edition published by H.H. Wilson):

 

(1) Shaivites frequently quote verses out of context to establish

that Shiva is absolutely the same as Vishnu. This is no exception.

This chapter describes the battle between Krishna and the thousand-

armed Baanaasura, who was aided by Lord Shiva. The Bhaagavatam

describes that Krishna fought with Shiva before engaging Baanaasura,

and that Shiva was defeated by Him. The Vishnu Puraana agrees with

this account - indeed, in this very chapter the Vishnu Puraana states:

.

.

.

.

 

The point here is that Krishna is NOT telling Shiva that they are the

same Supreme Lord - rather, He is clearly telling him that there is

oneness between them just as there is oneness between Himself and

this world, the gods, demons, etc.

 

In my experience, Shaivites try to prove unsuccessfully that Vishnu

and Shiva are the same Deity. When this fails, they then try to to

give the same argument by using Advaita philosophy - Vishnu and Shiva

are the same because everything is the same. When they do that, you

can simply revert to anti-Advaita logic to refute them.

 

yours,

 

K

 

Dear krishna_susarla

 

Please find the following verse from Bhagavad-Gita

 

 

 

rudrāṇāṁ śaṅkaraś cāsmi

vitteśo yakṣa-rakṣasām

vasūnāṁ pāvakaś cāsmi

meruḥ śikhariṇām aham

 

 

Prabupada's translation: "Of all the Rudras I am Lord Śiva; of the Yakṣas and Rākṣasas I am the lord of wealth [Kuvera]; of the Vasus I am fire [Agni], and of the mountains I am Meru."

 

The verse sumeet posted actually correlates to this verse. For the lack of time I'm not posting verses from other sources but if you think rationally all the scriptures lead to only thing - Lord Shiva and Lord Vishnu are same. At the time of necessity and the need for a particular duty the Supreme Personality of Godhead manifests himself as Lord Vishnu or Lord Shiva or Lord Brahma.

 

Let's not stick to just one source and drive our views based only on the particular source.

 

I don't recollect from which Upanishad the verse is from..but it essentially states that "when Goddess Parvati was praying to Shiva, the Lord told her that he loves Veera Shaivas and Veera Vaishnavas equally". Supreme Lord does not discriminate the devotees by the Lord or demigod they pray to.

 

I totally believe that both Lord Shiva and Lord Vishnu are one and the same. I know this is a bold statement but it's my own faith. I have so many personal experiences to come to this conclusion but you might not find these as proofs for the statement I made.

 

Whatever your heart says just follow

 

Hara Hara Mahadeva Shambo Shankara!

[dhiru]

Hi sumee lord shiv was born out from the third eye of maha vishnu and maha vishnu is the supreme in male form and maha devi gayaytri who greted the first god is vishnu!!!!!!!

[dhiru]

Hi there!all forms was not included in virahat rup or the universal form of krishna!!!!!!devi forms was not included!!!!! Nor any other cultures gods or godess!!!!!where included such as christ,eguptian and roman gods and goddess!!!!!!anyway there are so many forms of devi!!!!!!! If krisna showed arjun the froms of devi and devas then it could have been true sense that god has all forms!!!!!!!!!!