what r demigods? is lord Shiva a demi God?

[Raguraman]

 

Svet. Up.

yo devaanaaM prabhavashchodbhavashcha

vishvaadhipo rudro maharshhiH

hiraNyagarbha.n janayaamaasa puurva.n

sa no buddhyaa shubhayaa sa.nyunaktu .. 3.4..

3.4. He, the creator and supporter of the gods, Rudra, the great seer, the lord of all, he who formerly gave birth to Hiranyagarbha, may he endow us with good thoughts.

Rudra is progenitor of Hiraynagarbha and not son of Brahma. What you say is like saying that a wall was the progenitor of Nrisimha. And please note that Rudra is prayed to open up the Buddhi. No wonder that some intellects are clogged.

 

Hari Aum,

 

Aum Nama Shivaya,

 

If you have read the Shatapata Brahmana verses properly, you will not get confused like this.

 

In Shatapatha Brahmana, BrahmA gives his child names one after another when his child cries and claims to be sinful (anapahatapaapma). The names are Rudra, Sarva, Pasupati, Ugra, Usana, Bhava, Mahadeva, Ishana. All the above names given to the child indicates that the child is unmistakably Lord Shiva, Umapati. There is no single reason to think otherwise in this particular verse.

 

Now it is also important to note that here this child(who is Lord Shiva) claims to be sinful (anapahatapaapma) in nature when born and cries and requests BrahmA to cleanse his sins by giving above names.

By putting both points together we can conclude Lord Shiva is not Brahman or supreme.

All we know in Svetasvatara Upanishad is that, a being named RudrA is mentioned. Yet this upanishad mentions RudrA giving birth to BrahmA.

 

So the conclusion should be

 

1. Srutis contradict each other and hence Srutis are fallible

2. Shvetasvatara Upanishad mentions a different being by the name RudrA.

No 2 is the right conclusion. Also Svetatara mentions about this being RudrA possessing 1000s of heads, etc. which is similar to Purusa Sukta Verses. We also know that Purusa Sukta verses refer to Lord of Shri and Hree from Tatiriya Aranyaka.

 

Also we know from Bhallaveya Sruti and Visvakarma Sukta of Rig Veda that all the names of Devatas belong to Narayana. Besides it is well known that Isavasya Upansihad refers to Yajna(avatara of Narayana) as beyong impurities.

 

Hence RudrA in Svetasvatara upanishad refers to Narayana, while Umapati RudrA is (anapahatapaapma) as per Shatapatha Brahmana.

Therefore all your claims are iirelevant and illogical.

[Yogkriya]

Raghu,

So one Shatapatha Brahmana verse replaces everything else in the Vedic spiritual culture as well as at least 50 thousand years of Vedic history???

I understand your eagerness to 'prove' Lord Shiva a mere Demi-God. And address him as some sort of a "being".

BUT, you neverthless failed to explain the real life examples of the high souled Shiva devotees down the ages that I mentioned in previous mails. You simply brushed off the whole Mahabharata as a mere concocted nonsense!! This is not accepted! Not accepted anywhere!

 

My question is still valid, why would Rama, Krishna worship Lord Shiva with so much devotion? If one had to follow you, then we will have to throw away some of the Vedic scriptures. Since Srutis contradict each other and are fallible, then modern day books written by people like Prabhupada should have no meaning at all? How can they ever be authentic? What about chaitanya charitamrita? what is it based on? It is neither Veda, nor Upanishad, nor anything!

What now? Why do you follow that then? Where is the logic here? You seem to impound some through vociferating against shrutis and Puranas. If you don't accept puranas, then stop reading SB. If you do, then include Shiva Mahapurana too. The same Brahma was punished by Shiva and accept for Pushkar Raj in Rajasthan he is worshipped nowhere! Are you aware of this?

The origin of Shiva is not known to Vishnu and Brahma (according to Shiva Mahapurana), since he is without a beginning or an end. he is Swayambhu.

 

How do you explain the greatest of the Rishis like Upmanyu, Vashishtha, Vishwamitra, Kanad, Pulatsya, Atri, Bognath, Agstya......????

If we had to follow your explaination, then all of them were men of small intelligence? They were all the biggest Shiva devotees!! Further, Vama devata is the Rishi of Shiv sadhna too.

And finally Rama! AND KRISHNA!! And Arjuna! Why would they worship and Shiva? umm... any answers to that?

You failed to answer before anything on this. And none of the GBCs could answer it too.

I guess all you can imply is that Shiva is worshipped for material gains? This is so not true. Sadly you are not able to see both sides of the same coin - Shiva-Vishnu.

And lastly, the conclusion you came out with in deciding Shiva's position as a mere Demi-God is false. Simply because, Shiva is impossible to undersand with some intellectual debate and this is what you are trying to do. Srimad Bhagwatam explains nicely - that he can be understood only in the state of deep trance (Turiya awastha or Nirvikalpa Samadhi), not in the state of sleep, dream, emotional turmoil, etc.

 

 

 

Hari Aum,

 

Aum Nama Shivaya,

 

If you have read the Shatapata Brahmana verses properly, you will not get confused like this.

 

In Shatapatha Brahmana, BrahmA gives his child names one after another when his child cries and claims to be sinful (anapahatapaapma). The names are Rudra, Sarva, Pasupati, Ugra, Usana, Bhava, Mahadeva, Ishana. All the above names given to the child indicates that the child is unmistakably Lord Shiva, Umapati. There is no single reason to think otherwise in this particular verse.

 

Now it is also important to note that here this child(who is Lord Shiva) claims to be sinful (anapahatapaapma) in nature when born and cries and requests BrahmA to cleanse his sins by giving above names.

By putting both points together we can conclude Lord Shiva is not Brahman or supreme.

All we know in Svetasvatara Upanishad is that, a being named RudrA is mentioned. Yet this upanishad mentions RudrA giving birth to BrahmA.

 

So the conclusion should be

 

1. Srutis contradict each other and hence Srutis are fallible

2. Shvetasvatara Upanishad mentions a different being by the name RudrA.

No 2 is the right conclusion. Also Svetatara mentions about this being RudrA possessing 1000s of heads, etc. which is similar to Purusa Sukta Verses. We also know that Purusa Sukta verses refer to Lord of Shri and Hree from Tatiriya Aranyaka.

 

Also we know from Bhallaveya Sruti and Visvakarma Sukta of Rig Veda that all the names of Devatas belong to Narayana. Besides it is well known that Isavasya Upansihad refers to Yajna(avatara of Narayana) as beyong impurities.

 

Hence RudrA in Svetasvatara upanishad refers to Narayana, while Umapati RudrA is (anapahatapaapma) as per Shatapatha Brahmana.

Therefore all your claims are iirelevant and illogical.

[Yogkriya]

 

Nonesense and proven wrong by the same Shatapatha Brahmana verses.

 

Not really. I don't recognize this as the highest authority.

[Yogkriya]

 

All these verses are concocted and must be rejected as it opposes Sruti.

 

But you said - Srutis are fallible.

[Yogkriya]

 

By the way, there is no SadaShiva etc. which some schools have manufactured.

 

Just like Vishvambar Mishra's being avatara of Krishna?

 

Vashishtha Rishi - the great kul Guru of Rama worships Sadashiva devata.

[Yogkriya]

 

When I use the term "servant" it does not make someone less. But it shows their Love for that personality.

 

Yes so true Yogesh.

 

 

If you are going away to a forest to meditate I wish you all the Best in attaining the mercy of Lord Shiva and If I could ask a Little favour.....If Lord Shiva may give me a little of his mercy that I may become a better devotee and follow Sirla Prabhupadas teachings without causing Vaishnava Aparaadh.

 

I used to go to retreats with my Guru to forests in the mountains, temples at night (all night meditations on the deity closing ourselves inside the altar room), but not anymore. My room is my cave for meditation that I can lock and get some mercy. I will ask for some mercy for you too. Follow SP if he is your Guru or inspiration. Don't lose faith in Yogeshwar Shri Krishna.

 

 

Yes sometimes I can become emotional But what to do? I am a personalist (not impersonalist) and as you are very much attracted to Lord Shiva, I am very much attracted to Lord Krsna and All Vishnu Avatars and All Dear Devotees. But onething I will not allow my emotions to cause Vaishnava Aparaadh.

 

I am still learning and growing and maybe by the mercy of all Bhaktas (Krsna or Shiva) I may reach my goal of becoming a servant of the servant of my most beloved object of worship Lord Krsna.

 

So I ask for forgiveness if I have offended You or any other devotees.

Wishing You all the Best in your Sadhana

 

Where there is love, devotion and affection, desire for intectual warfare is lost! And that is the only reason why Bhakti and devotional love has been considered as high. Lord Shiva says in Shiv Samhita to Parvati that Yoga is the highest of all forms of sadhna, BUT it should be given to a Bhakta only and this shows the importance of bhakti and devotion. Even if a Yogi attains supernatural powers, he needs bhakti to keep them controlled and devoted. I wish you all the best in your loving devotional service and sadhna! Om Namah Shivaya!!

[Raguraman]

 

Not really. I don't recognize this as the highest authority.

 

How does it matter if you recognize or do not recognize Srutis ? You are not that important.

[Raguraman]

 

But you said - Srutis are fallible.

 

The conclusion can be either 1 or 2. In that same post I mentioned that no 2. is right. I adid not say anything about 1. Learn to read properly first.

[Raguraman]

 

Raghu,

So one Shatapatha Brahmana verse replaces everything else in the Vedic spiritual culture as well as at least 50 thousand years of Vedic history???

I understand your eagerness to 'prove' Lord Shiva a mere Demi-God. And address him as some sort of a "being".

These are illogical statements. Every statement of Sruti is infallible and equally important. You have no capacity to understand logic properly.

 

The Shatapatha Brahmana verses explain very clearly and cannot be interpreted in any other way. It is clearly talking about Umapati Rudra Deva or Lord Shiva and none else.

 

While in Shvetasvatara Upanishad verses there is no such indication. Apparently it talks about a being called RudrA who gave birth to HiranyagarbhA. There is also mention of this being possessing thousands of parts which is similar to Purusa Sukta. Purusa Sukta talks about Narayana which is confirmed explicitly in Tatittiriya Aranyaka as Lord of Sree and Hree. Now one can ask why Narayana is mentioned by the name Rudra in Svetasvatara Upanishad. The answer is Visvakarma Sukta of Rig Veda and Bhallaveya Sruti where it is implicitly and explicitly mentioned that Narayana is the real owner of all Devatas names.

 

Besides Isavasya Upanishad clearly mentiones Brahman is without defects, while Lord RudrA is mentioned as anapahatapaapma in Shatapatha Brahmana. Hence Lord RudrA is not Brahman. Case closed. You can jump, shout, cry, throw insults, do whatever you want. As per Vedas Lord RudrA is not Brahman and hence that is the truth period.

 

 

BUT, you neverthless failed to explain the real life examples of the high souled Shiva devotees down the ages that I mentioned in previous mails. You simply brushed off the whole Mahabharata as a mere concocted nonsense!! This is not accepted! Not accepted anywhere!

Itihaasas are secondary when compared to Srutis, ie. they are authored by somebody. Besides itihaasas can be, were and are being tampered with unlike Vedas. Hence when they oppose Vedas they are to be rejected as unauthorized rendering of scriptures.

 

It is irrelevant if Lord Shiva's devotees are high souled here. The truth remains truth regardless of what people become and what people do.

 

 

My question is still valid, why would Rama, Krishna worship Lord Shiva with so much devotion?

 

Please read fully and carefully, especially the verse in bold red.

 

http://www.dvaita.org/list/list_44/msg00112.html

Public username and password: dvaita

 

Reference: Shanti Parva of Mahabharata. Verses 12.328.5 onwards

 

Arjuna uvAcha

 

bhagavanbhUtabhavyesha sarvabhUtasR^igavyaya

lokadhAma jagannAtha lokAnAm abhayaprada

yAni nAmAni te devakIrtitAni maharShibhiH

vedeShu sapurANeShu yAni guhyAni karmabhiH

teShAM niruktaM tvatto.ahaM shrotumichChAmi keshava

na hyanyo vartayennAmnAM niruktaM tvAmR^ite prabho

 

Addressing the Lord, Arjuna says, O Lord Keshava, the Lord of Past and

future, the Creator of All, the Changeless Being, the Supporter and

indweller of the universe, the Lord of the universe and grantor of refuge to

[all the deserving beings of] the universe, I wish to know the etymology of

your names, which are extolled by [the Devas and] the Maharishis, which are

in the Vedas and the Puranas and are hidden from the [undeserving beings]

and beyond the reach of actions. There does not exist a greater truth or

divine law apart from the true meaning of your names, my Lord.

 

shrIbhagavAn uvAcha

 

R^igvede sayajurvede tathaivAtharva sAmasu

purANe sopaniShade tathaiva jyotiShe.arjuna

sA~Nkhye cha yogashAstre cha Ayurvede tathaiva cha

bahUni mama nAmAni kIrtitAni maharShibhiH

 

The Lord says:

 

My names are sung by the Maharishis in the RgVeda, YajurVeda, Atharvaveda,

Samaveda, in the purANa, in the Upanishad(**Any idea why the singular is

used?**), in the Jyotish Vidya, in the Sankhya, in the Yogashastra, and in

the Ayurveda(!).

 

gaunAni tatra nAmAni karmajAni cha kAni chit

niruktaM karmajAnAM cha shR^iNuShva prayato.anagha

kathyamAnaM mayA tAta tvaM hi me.ardhaM smR^itaH purA

 

O Destroyer of opponents, in those texts, some names are indicative of my

qualities (Gunas), while some extol my actions. Listen to the etymology of

these names. Earlier, I have told some of these to you.

 

namo.ati yashase tasmai dehinAM paramAtmane

nArAyaNAya vishvAya nirguNAya guNAtmane

yasya prasAdajo brahmA rudrashcha krodhasambhavaH

yo.asau yonirhi sarvasya sthAvarasya charasya cha

astAdasha guNaM yattatsattvaM sattvavatAM vara

 

Glories to the extremely famous, the Paramatma Narayana, who is nirguna

(devoid of prakritic attributes) and full of auspicious qualities. Glories

to that Being, out of whose grace was Brahma born and out of whose anger was

Rudra born; Glories to Him who is the origin of all; the moving and

stationery. Glories to Him, who has the eighteen excellent virtues and who

is the true essence and strength of all living beings.

 

prakR^itiH sA parA mahyaM rodasI yogadhAriNI

R^itA satyAmarAjayyA lokAnAmAtmasa~nj~nitA

tasmAtsarvAH pravartante sarga pralaya vikriyAH

 

Everything; creation, destruction and all other changes; arises out of the

Prakriti (Lakshmi), Who is the wife of Narayana. [Among all dependent

beings], she is the most knowledgeable, effulgent, powerful and victorious.

She does all this with my grace and she is known as "AtmA" of the entire

universe [after Paramatma] (as she appoints and manages Brahma, Rudra and

other deities as per the command of the Lord).

 

Note: The thoughts expressed in the above 3 lines are the same as reflected

in "AmbhR^iNI sUkta" and 7th adhyaya of Dvadashastotra.

 

tato yaGYashcha yaShTA cha purANaH puruSho virAt

aniruddha iti prokto lokAnAM prabhavApyayaH

 

Thus such Lord is spoken of as yaj~na (the worship) and the worshipper. (God

takes all the fruits of yaj~na and He instigates the worshipper.) He is the

most ancient (anAdi and controller of all) and greatest one. No one is His

Lord and He is unstoppable. He is the creator and annihilator of all the

worlds.

 

brAhme rAtrikShaye prApte tasya hyamitatejasaH

prasAdAtprAdurabhavatpadmaM padmanibhekShaNa

tatra brahmA samabhavatsa tasyaiva prasAdajaH

 

In the Brahma muhurta, at the end of the night, due to the mercy of the

extremely brilliant Lord, a lotus emerged from His navel and in that lotus,

Brahma was born, ofcourse, due to His grace.

 

ahnaH kShaye lalAtAchcha suto devasya vai tathA

krodhAviShTasya sa~njaGYe rudraH saMhAra kArakaH

etau dvau vibudhashreShThau prasAdakrodhajau smR^itau

 

At the end of the day, the Lord [present as antaryAmi of Brahma *] created

Rudra out of Krodha-guNa, to enable him to be the 'samhAra-kartA'. Thus,

these two 'fine-among-wise', Brahma and Rudra, are known to have been born

out of grace and anger respectively.

 

*: This interpretation is necessary because in the later sections of

Moxadharma, Brahma addresses Rudra as a son.

 

tadAdeshita panthAnau sR^iShTi saMhAra kArakau

nimittamAtraM tAvatra sarvaprAni varapradau

 

Thus, they carry out the instructed tasks of creation and destruction.

However, they, the givers of boons to all the creatures, are just the

agents.

 

kapardI jatilo mundaH shmashAnagR^ihasevakaH

ugravratadharo rudro yogI tripuradAruNaH

dakShakratuharashchaiva bhaga netraharastathA

 

[Rudra has] braided hair with knot of an ascetic and rest of the head bald.

He dwells in the home of graveyard, steadfast on vigorous penance as a yogi.

He is ferocious to tripurasuras, destroyed daxayaj~na and took away the eyes

of Bhaga.

 

nArAyaNAtmako GYeyaH pANDaveya yuge yuge

O Arjuna, know that in every yuga, Rudra is 'nArAyaNAtmaka'. This phrase can

mean: one whose indweller is Narayana, one who is always immersed in

Narayana.

tasminhi pUjyamAne vai devadeve maheshvare

sampUjito bhavetpArtha devo nArAyaNaH prabhuH

It is the Lord, the prabhu, the Narayana *IN* Maheshvara (the worshippable,

the lord of the devas), who is actually worshipped.

ahamAtmA hi lokAnAM vishvAnAM pANDunandana

tasmAdAtmAnamevAgre rudraM sampUjayAmyaham

yadyahaM nArchayeyaM vai IshAnaM varadaM shivam

AtmAnaM nArchayetkashchiditi me bhAvitaM manaH

O Son of Pandu, I am, indeed, the Atma, the indweller of this universe and

the worlds. Therefore, I worship myself first, even when I worship Rudra. If

I did not worship Rudra, the bestower of boons, in such a way (i.e.,

worshipping the indwelling Lord first), some would not worship me, the

indwelling Lord, at all - this is my opinion.

mayA pramANaM hi kR^itaM lokaH samanuvartate

pramAnAni hi pUjyAni tatastaM pUjayAmyaham

 

Whatever I follow and give due worth as a pramANa, the world follows that.

Such pramANAs have to be duly followed; therefore I follow them.

 

yastaM vetti sa mAM vetti yo.anu taM sa hi mAm anu

rudro nArAyaNashchaiva sattvamekaM dvidhAkR^itam

loke charati kaunteya vyakti sthaM sarvakarmasu

Whoever knows him, knows Me. Whoever follows him, follows ME. (Though) the

world, in all its actions, worships two Gods Rudra and Narayana, it is

actually One only(i.e. Narayana, the indweller of Rudra) who is worshipped.

na hi me kenachid deyo varaH pANDavanandana

iti sa~ncintya manasA purANaM vishvamIshvaram

putrArthaM ArAdhitavAn AtmAnaM aham AtmanA

O Son of Pandu, there is, of course, nobody who can grant me boons. Knowing

that well, I worhip myself, Who am the beginningless and universal power,

known as Sarveshvara, for the sake of getting sons.

na hi viShNuH pranamati kasmai chidvibudhAya tu

R^ita AtmAnameveti tato rudraM bhajAmyaham

Indeed Vishnu does not bow to any one and [even when He bows to Himself],

for what sake, but for the sake of showing the path to the wise. Therefore,

it is the truth that I worship myself even when I worship Rudra.

 

sabrahmakAH sarudrAshcha sendrA devAH saharShibhiH

archayanti surashreShThaM devaM nArAyaNaM harim

 

The Brahmas, the Rudras, the Indras, the Devatas, all the Rishis worship the

best among the Gods, Narayana, Hari.

 

bhaviShyatAM vartatAM cha bhUtAnAM chaiva bhArata

sarveShAmagraNIrviShNuH sevyaH pUjyashcha nityashaH

 

Always, of all the past, future and present, it is first, Vishnu who is to

be propitiated and worshipped.

 

namasva havyadaM viShNuM tathA sharaNadaM nama

varadaM namasva kaunteya havyagavya bhujaM nama

 

[You] bow to Lord Vishnu, Who grants the material for oblations [so that the

devotee can perform worship]. Bow to One, Who gives refuge to the devotees.

Bow to One, Who gives boons to the devotees. Bow to One, Who consumes all

the oblations and milk, curds, etc.

 

chaturvidhA mama janA bhaktA evaM hi te shrutam

teShAmekAntinaH shreShThAste chaivAnanya devatAH

ahameva gatisteShAM nirAshIH karma kAriNAm

ye cha shiShTAstrayo bhaktAH phalakAmA hi te matAH

sarve chyavana dharmANaH pratibuddhastu shreShTha bhAk

brahmANaM shiti kanthaM cha yAshchAnyA devatAH smR^itAH

prabuddhavaryAH sevante eSha pArthAnukItritaH

bhaktaM prati visheShaste eSha pArthAnukIrtitaH

 

There are four kinds of devotees. Among them the best are the "ekanta

bhaktas" like the gods. I am their refuge, who do action interested in

nothing except me. The other three kinds are desirous of fruits of action.

They move on the path of Dharma, enlightened share their knowledge with

others. They worship Brahma, Rudra and other

gods, with their own enlightenment. O Partha, they go unto the god, they

worship.

[Yogkriya]

 

The conclusion can be either 1 or 2. In that same post I mentioned that no 2. is right. I adid not say anything about 1. Learn to read properly first.

Its not a matter or "learning" to read Rag! Its a matter of acceptance!

[Yogkriya]

 

How does it matter if you recognize or do not recognize Srutis ? You are not that important.

No and nor are you.

I didn't say I don't recognize the Srutis. If you developed better understanding, you would start noticing that I do not recognize this one sided positioning agenda. Because this is not totally Vedic either. As you mentioned Srutis are contradictory and equally important, they hail both Narayana and Rudra/Shiva as Supreme. Why? Why not just Narayana as you claim? And the secret is not easy to understand if you research with a God positioning agenda. Again. I accept both the views and not just one view. I can't belittle Shiva in any way or consider him any lower than Narayana/Hari. AND CERTAINELY NOT A MERE DEMI-GOD! Whatever scriptures I have studied are enough to prove that to me. And after all, its also a matter of personal belief. I like your way of proving. But still on the basis of scriptural study alone, you can't realize even the self. Forget Narayana/Hari. All you can do is assume. Nothing more. Just a belief. But no realization.

 

The same Lord Hari explains his Gita to Arjuna - greatest of the yogis, one after the other chapter and still Arjuna fails to completely understand unless Hari finally openes his agya chakra with shaktipaat kriya and shows him the universal form in him. And then no arguments are needed anymore. Hearing is not seeing. Sorry. And I assume you have not seen Shiva nor Narayana.

 

I'm not a vedantin engaged in verse warfare proving, disproving. I'm a sadhak and way of sadhna means everything and is indeed everything. Because without sadhna there is nothing. There is Narayana, but you can't realize him without sadhna. You can't get his mercy without earning it first either. No matter how much you jump up and down and shout with arguments from scriptures.

Though a lawyer can prove false as true or otherwise, it doesn't change things really. And the truth cannot be realized without sadhna. It comes on a different level. Not on a level of reading scriptures. Scripture reading is important too. But not everything. Only "gyan" brings to liberation. And "gyan" is not theory alone. Theory is knowledge. This is what you are engaged into and are flaunting. But it is when you apply this in life and get results from it, that is gyana. Anyways... dismiss this post as irrelevant.

[Yogkriya]

 

You have no capacity to understand logic properly.

 

I can fairly understand your logic Raghu.

 

LOL! You reject Mahabharata as something concocted when it comes to Anushasana Parva just to disprove my point, saying itihas is tempered with, but when it comes to proving your own point, you copy paste a long part of the same Mahabharata just to prove impound your own point!! That is logic?

Since you already disapproved Mahabharata as a mere concoction and not real, then this whole long post submitted by you is not to be considered seriously at all. You yourself discredited it in teh first place! Now you can't use Mahabharata as a reference dude! This was about your logic.

 

However, on a more serious note, I have no problem at all accepting both the Shanti Parva and Anushasan Parva. And I have no problem accepting Lord Vishnu as Supreme and Lord Shiva as Supreme too.

 

I suggest, you study Advait Vedanta along with your own davait bhava for a more complete understanding. Both are to be accepted. Then you will be able to come to terms with Shiva and Vishnu. Unless you are leading with one camp alone, the other camp will look as your opponent only. If this was to be the case in the spiritual world, then Shiva and Vishnu would be fighting Star Wars in every Yuga. But this is a low human ego centered viewpoint.

As I wrote here before, the problem is with the monkeys of Rama and the ghosts of Shiva. Shiva and Vishnu don't have any. It is the followers who fight and prove-disprove. And that is the whole logic Raghu.

 

And yes I read and accept the part in bold from Shanti Parva. No problems here with Hari. But I do accept everything that Krishna says about Shiva in Anushasana Prava too! And if you want to give credit to these verses from Shanti Parva, then give credit to ones from Anushasana Parva. Krishna himself speaks them. If you base your "judgement" Vedas, then why not accept verses given earlier from Rig and Sama Veda by Atanu too?

[Raguraman]

 

No and nor are you.

I didn't say I don't recognize the Srutis. If you developed better understanding, you would start noticing that I do not recognize this one sided positioning agenda. Because this is not totally Vedic either. As you mentioned Srutis are contradictory and equally important, they hail both Narayana and Rudra/Shiva as Supreme. Why?

I just thought you do not read fully, but you are real dull if you cannot understand what I have said.

 

I said either we have to conclude that Srutis contradict each other or we have to interpret Sritis differently as per point 2.

 

Is that difficult for you to understand. I choose point 2 instead of doubting the infallibility of Srutis.

[Raguraman]

 

Why not just Narayana as you claim? And the secret is not easy to understand if you research with a God positioning agenda. Again. I accept both the views and not just one view. I can't belittle Shiva in any way or consider him any lower than Narayana/Hari. AND CERTAINELY NOT A MERE DEMI-GOD! Whatever scriptures I have studied are enough to prove that to me. And after all, its also a matter of personal belief. I like your way of proving. But still on the basis of scriptural study alone, you can't realize even the self. Forget Narayana/Hari. All you can do is assume. Nothing more. Just a belief. But no realization.

 

So what. If somebody says I have realized that S is same as V, should I agree with him. How do you know if he/she is realized ?

 

1. you should be realized

2. There should be some basis for ordinary people to find it out.

 

The basis for us is Vedas. That is why the special status for Vedas as apaurasheya. So let us stick to logic instead of irrelevant topics like my realization or yours. It can easily backfire on you.

 

By your logic(not mine), since you are not realized you are not in any position to tell others whether they are correct or wrong. Such arguments are unproductive for you.

 

 

The same Lord Hari explains his Gita to Arjuna - greatest of the yogis, one after the other chapter and still Arjuna fails to completely understand unless Hari finally openes his agya chakra with shaktipaat kriya and shows him the universal form in him. And then no arguments are needed anymore. Hearing is not seeing. Sorry. And I assume you have not seen Shiva nor Narayana.

 

Mindless opinions based on one's own opinions and arrogance. Base your arguments on Sruti. Otherwise every tom, dick and harry can say anything they want and the end result is chaos as we today have in so called Hinduism that strayed far away from Vedas even to such an extent as to reject Vedas. The case in point is Lingayats.

 

 

I'm not a vedantin engaged in verse warfare proving, disproving. I'm a sadhak and way of sadhna means everything and is indeed everything. Because without sadhna there is nothing. There is Narayana, but you can't realize him without sadhna. You can't get his mercy without earning it first either. No matter how much you jump up and down and shout with arguments from scriptures.

 

Who told you that scriptural study does not constitute Sadhna ? Why else there are scriptures provided ?

 

 

Though a lawyer can prove false as true or otherwise, it doesn't change things really. And the truth cannot be realized without sadhna. It comes on a different level. Not on a level of reading scriptures. Scripture reading is important too. But not everything. Only "gyan" brings to liberation. And "gyan" is not theory alone. Theory is knowledge. This is what you are engaged into and are flaunting. But it is when you apply this in life and get results from it, that is gyana. Anyways... dismiss this post as irrelevant.

 

Jnana means knowledge. So whatever you start with wrong knowledge, you are not going to get anything. All your questions have been answered clearly from Scriptures. If you still want to follow your own path fine.

[Raguraman]

 

I can fairly understand your logic Raghu.

 

LOL! You reject Mahabharata as something concocted when it comes to Anushasana Parva just to disprove my point, saying itihas is tempered with, but when it comes to proving your own point, you copy paste a long part of the same Mahabharata just to prove impound your own point!! That is logic?

This point itself shows that you did not understand anything about my logic.

 

So let me repeat again.

 

1. If any verse from smriti, Itihaasas, Puranas contradict Vedas ie Sruti they are to be discarded, as there is a possibility of being concocted.

 

2. Point no 1 does not imply that entire Mahabharata is discarded. It is only those portions that contradict Sruti are to be discarded.

 

3. Now go and read the verses from Mahabharatha where Shri Krishna clears your doubts.

 

4. Shatapatha Brahmana, being Sruti cannot be sidelined. It is a death blow to claimants of advaita, Shivites etc. If you have anything more logical to explain please do write.

 

If you are truthful and honest guy, you would think about this verse from Shatapatha Brahmana. But I do not think I can expect any better from guys like you.

 

 

Since you already disapproved Mahabharata as a mere concoction and not real, then this whole long post submitted by you is not to be considered seriously at all. You yourself discredited it in teh first place! Now you can't use Mahabharata as a reference dude! This was about your logic.

Read my above argument carefully. I never said entire Mahabharatha is to be discarded. I said certain verses in Mahabharatha are probably concocted when they contradict Sruti. Regardless if whether being concocted or not, those verses that contradict Sruti is to be discarded.

 

So now do me a favor. Go and read those verses from Mahabharatha I copy pasted as it is relevant to your question. There Lord Krishna clearly explains that he worships only HiMSELF and NOT RUDRA, Umapati.

 

 

However, on a more serious note, I have no problem at all accepting both the Shanti Parva and Anushasan Parva. And I have no problem accepting Lord Vishnu as Supreme and Lord Shiva as Supreme too.

 

How does it matter what you think. Prove from Srutis.

 

 

I suggest, you study Advait Vedanta along with your own davait bhava for a more complete understanding.

I have read enough. Advaita is FALSE as per Vedas.

[Yogkriya]

 

nArAyaNAtmako GYeyaH pANDaveya yuge yuge

O Arjuna, know that in every yuga, Rudra is 'nArAyaNAtmaka'. This phrase can

mean: one whose indweller is Narayana, one who is always immersed in

Narayana.

Yes whose indweller is Narayana, but who himself every yuga Rudra is also in the heart of Narayana. The atma of Narayana (!)

tasminhi pUjyamAne vai devadeve maheshvare

sampUjito bhavetpArtha devo nArAyaNaH prabhuH

It is the Lord, the prabhu, the Narayana in Maheshvara (the worshippable,

the lord of the devas), who is actually worshipped.

Lord of Lords. Yes Maheswara is the DevaDeve - Lord of the Lords, not a -demi-God! But Lord of the demiGods. Similarly, when Vishnu is worshipped, Shiva is worshipped in his heart too. Shiva states this clearly because the same Maheswara is ever in Vishnu's heart and is the Paramatma and ParBrahm.

ahamAtmA hi lokAnAM vishvAnAM pANDunandana

tasmAdAtmAnamevAgre rudraM sampUjayAmyaham

yadyahaM nArchayeyaM vai IshAnaM varadaM shivam

AtmAnaM nArchayetkashchiditi me bhAvitaM manaH

O Son of Pandu, I am, indeed, the Atma, the indweller of this universe and

the worlds. Therefore, I worship myself first, even when I worship Rudra. If

I did not worship Rudra, the bestower of boons, in such a way (i.e.,

worshipping the indwelling Lord first), some would not worship me, the

indwelling Lord, at all - this is my opinion.

No problem with that.

mayA pramANaM hi kR^itaM lokaH samanuvartate

pramAnAni hi pUjyAni tatastaM pUjayAmyaham

 

Whatever I follow and give due worth as a pramANa, the world follows that.

Such pramANAs have to be duly followed; therefore I follow them.

 

yastaM vetti sa mAM vetti yo.anu taM sa hi mAm anu

rudro nArAyaNashchaiva sattvamekaM dvidhAkR^itam

loke charati kaunteya vyakti sthaM sarvakarmasu

Whoever knows him, knows Me. Whoever follows him, follows ME. (Though) the

world, in all its actions, worships two Gods Rudra and Narayana, it is

actually One only(i.e. Narayana, the indweller of Rudra) who is worshipped.

YES this is important. BUT it is both ways. Narayan the indweller of Rudra and Rudra the indweller of Narayana! This is the truth Raghu. See it.

na hi me kenachid deyo varaH pANDavanandana

iti sa~ncintya manasA purANaM vishvamIshvaram

putrArthaM ArAdhitavAn AtmAnaM aham AtmanA

O Son of Pandu, there is, of course, nobody who can grant me boons. Knowing that well, I worhip myself, Who am the beginningless and universal power, known as Sarveshvara, for the sake of getting sons.

na hi viShNuH pranamati kasmai chidvibudhAya tu

R^ita AtmAnameveti tato rudraM bhajAmyaham

Indeed Vishnu does not bow to any one and [even when He bows to Himself], for what sake, but for the sake of showing the path to the wise. Therefore,

it is the truth that I worship myself even when I worship Rudra.

 

This is not a simple quote. And not to be understood simply. It points to the same line as ahambrahmasmi. Which again has been laughed upon by the davatins, the hare krishnas etc. This speaks about the level of closeness of Shiva and Vishnu. But you are able to focus only on the Vishnu part even here. Vishnu worships himself while worshipping Rudra, because he sees no difference between the two. He sees himself as one with Rudra. What happens to the God positioning agenda here? Trash it.

Also many times I hear dvaitins say oh Krishna worshipped Shiva to show through his example. But hardly any Hari bhakta follows that example. I enjoy worshipping Hari.

 

 

sabrahmakAH sarudrAshcha sendrA devAH saharShibhiH

archayanti surashreShThaM devaM nArAyaNaM harim

 

The Brahmas, the Rudras, the Indras, the Devatas, all the Rishis worship the best among the Gods, Narayana, Hari.

 

bhaviShyatAM vartatAM cha bhUtAnAM chaiva bhArata

sarveShAmagraNIrviShNuH sevyaH pUjyashcha nityashaH

 

Always, of all the past, future and present, it is first, Vishnu who is to

be propitiated and worshipped.

 

namasva havyadaM viShNuM tathA sharaNadaM nama

varadaM namasva kaunteya havyagavya bhujaM nama

 

[You] bow to Lord Vishnu, Who grants the material for oblations [so that the devotee can perform worship]. Bow to One, Who gives refuge to the devotees.

Bow to One, Who gives boons to the devotees. Bow to One, Who consumes all the oblations and milk, curds, etc.

 

chaturvidhA mama janA bhaktA evaM hi te shrutam

teShAmekAntinaH shreShThAste chaivAnanya devatAH

ahameva gatisteShAM nirAshIH karma kAriNAm

ye cha shiShTAstrayo bhaktAH phalakAmA hi te matAH

sarve chyavana dharmANaH pratibuddhastu shreShTha bhAk

brahmANaM shiti kanthaM cha yAshchAnyA devatAH smR^itAH

prabuddhavaryAH sevante eSha pArthAnukItritaH

bhaktaM prati visheShaste eSha pArthAnukIrtitaH

 

There are four kinds of devotees. Among them the best are the "ekanta

bhaktas" like the gods. I am their refuge, who do action interested in

nothing except me. The other three kinds are desirous of fruits of action.

They move on the path of Dharma, enlightened share their knowledge with

others. They worship Brahma, Rudra and other

gods, with their own enlightenment. O Partha, they go unto the god, they

worship.

 

All this is true. But the problem is that you are trying to separate Vishnu from Shiva and perch one above the other on a shelf and give them three or five stars. The quotes you pasted here clearly state on the closeness of Vishnu and Shiva. Both are in each other's heart always. Inseperable. And they both worship each other. Vishnu doesn't worship for boons, but worships Shiva for a thousand years and gets Sudarshan Chakra as a boon. Shiva says I create as Brahma, sustain as Vishnu and destroy as Rudra. Vishnu accepts this in Padma Purana. Here Vishnu says similar thing. Does this still ring any bells? If it still doesn't, then sorry. Vishnu is Supreme. I have no doubt about this. Shiva is Supreme, I have no doubt about this either. You can quote another volume, so can I.

But this is the conclusion. I am not interested in perching my self above you. What's the use?

 

I accept both as equal. Now all matters is my personal sadhna.

There has to be a conclusion for me. I can't move with Dualism. One has to rise above dualism and see the universe as His manifested shakti. He is in everything and is the cause of everything. I call him Shiva. You can call him Vishnu. That is not the point. The point is again, where do I stand and what is my status. How can I rise above this. And that is what matters my friend. I have no powers to decide on the positions of Gods. I still have to reach them to see it.

Mantra heenam, kriya heenam, bhakti heenam sureshwara, yat pujitam maya deve, paripurnam tadastu mev! Om Namah Shivaya.

[Yogkriya]

You follow Dvaita so Advaita for you is false.

 

You can state one path false, if it leads nowhere or does not lead to the target destination. If that was the case, then there wouldn't have been any Rishis following that path. Advaita wouldn't have produced so many great Rishis.

 

If Advaita was all that false, why would Vishvambar Mishra go to one after the other to two advaita Gurus from Shankaracharya lineage for knowledge and initiation? Even though he seemed to preach dvaita philosophy?

[Yogkriya]

 

So what. If somebody says I have realized that S is same as V, should I agree with him. How do you know if he/she is realized ?

 

1. you should be realized

2. There should be some basis for ordinary people to find it out.

 

The basis for us is Vedas. That is why the special status for Vedas as apaurasheya. So let us stick to logic instead of irrelevant topics like my realization or yours. It can easily backfire on you.

 

By your logic(not mine), since you are not realized you are not in any position to tell others whether they are correct or wrong. Such arguments are unproductive for you.

 

 

 

Mindless opinions based on one's own opinions and arrogance. Base your arguments on Sruti. Otherwise every tom, dick and harry can say anything they want and the end result is chaos as we today have in so called Hinduism that strayed far away from Vedas even to such an extent as to reject Vedas. The case in point is Lingayats.

 

 

 

Who told you that scriptural study does not constitute Sadhna ? Why else there are scriptures provided ?

 

 

 

Jnana means knowledge. So whatever you start with wrong knowledge, you are not going to get anything. All your questions have been answered clearly from Scriptures. If you still want to follow your own path fine.

 

That is path of Yoga. Which you can't follow nor understand. It is not a path of arguments to start with. It is Vedic. Again, you don't seem to understand, because you want proof from scriptures. The proof I have given is not enough for you. You can reject parts of Mahabharata all you want because some are not matching your srutis. If you read Anushasana Prava again, dozens of Rishis come to Krishna and state their experience in realization of Shiva. Now according to you they all shoudl differ! But they all state similar experience. It is for the blind lost in dualism who find it all different. Like the blind touching the elephant found it different.

If fire burns your hand, or water wets your hand, it is the truth. And upon experincing, this will be the same experience for all. You don't always need a book to prove it. Universal truths are the same when experiences. It is not speculation arising from arrogance or ego. For you can't rise in Yog if you are following arrogance and ego and that is the litmus test. Further more you can't rise in yoga without a sadguru. Who himself is a realized soul. I understand what you mean by reading scriptures and repeating what is there. It is all there already! Anyone can read it. But without realization, it means nothing. Until and unless you realize it, until and unless you come face to face with facts, not just by reading them, they still remain unrealized by YOU. You have to realized them after reading and believing what is written in the Vedas. Certainely I accept the Vedas and consider them as a guide.

Lord says I'm in the heart of every one. You believe that. But you can still get annoyed with others or feel enimosity towards them. Can you actually see the Lord? That is the question. Yes Vedas give the truth, but unless you realize it...

follow your own logic dude.

 

As far as chaos called Hinduism is concerned, then I can name the chaos Dvait and Gaudiya organizations are into today. All are divided because can't agree over simple issues, have sprouted out different branches and have issues, enimosity, hatred and jealousy (like who made more money from sale of books and who is making more disciples etc). Let's not get in to that.

[atanu]

 

Hari Aum,

 

Aum Nama Shivaya,

 

If you have read the Shatapata Brahmana verses properly, you will not get confused like this.

 

In Shatapatha Brahmana, BrahmA gives his child names one after another when his child cries and claims to be sinful (anapahatapaapma). -----

 

 

Cite the verse and the context fully and we will see.

 

 

Hi Raghu Pandit.

 

I have always admired your brilliant logic. As per you EKO RUDRO DVITTIYA NA TASHTHU refers to Narayana alone. I agree.

 

So, Narayana must be sinful since He was alone. He gave birth to Brahma from whom sinful Rudra was born.

 

Sin cannot come from nothing. (And I also keep wondering how a child came to know that it was sinful? Ha. Ha)

 

 

And Raghu yoy are just an intolerant hindu whom hinduism can do without, since who needs moslems and christians when hindus like you are around.

 

 

You have not seen

 

RV10.061.05 (Rudra), the benefactor of man, whose eager, virile energy was developed, drew it back when disseminated (for the generation of offfspring); again the irresistible (Rudra) concentrates (the energy) which was communicated to his maiden daughter.

RV 10.061.06 When the deed was done in mid-heaven in the proximity of the father working his will, and the daughter coming together, they let the seed fall slightly; it was poured upon the high place of sacrifice.

RV 10.061.07 When the father united with the daughter, then associating with the earth, he sprinkled it with the effusion; then the thoughtful gods begot Brahma; they fabricated the lord of the hearth (of sacrifice); the defender of sacred rites

Brahma is a mental concept of Devas and so is Brahmanspati. There is none other than one EKO RUDRA who is thousand headed Purusha, Narayana and who is father of Hiryanagarbha. He is the father, the daughter, and the son.

 

 

And if you think Vishnu is Narayana then see this:

 

Rig Veda 9

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

<?xml:namespace prefix = u1 /><u1:p></u1:p>j/in/ta¶erœ j?in/ta sUyR?Sy jin/teNÔ?Sy jin/taet iv:[ae>? . 9- 096- 05

<u1:p></u1:p>

<u1:p></u1:p>

<u1:p></u1:p>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. 9.96.5

 

 

Raghu you are a thankless fellow not by your own choice but since you are blinded by gunas. Shiva is supreme sacrifice. It is because of auspiciousness that the universe and you exist. All exist since Shiva drinks the poison of samsara. It is because of bliss soma that we have any reason to exist. You will know the truth as given below but surely with pain.

 

 

Svet. Up,

4.18 yadaa.atamastaanna divaa na raatriH

na sannachaasachchhiva eva kevalaH .

tadaxara.n tat.h saviturvareNyaM

praGYaa cha tasmaat.h prasR^itaa puraaNii .. 18

4.18. When the light has risen, there is no day, no night, neither existence nor non-existence; Siva (the blessed) alone is there. That is the eternal, the adorable light of Savitri, - and the ancient praGYaa proceeded thence.

6.7 tamiishvaraaNaaM paramaM maheshvara.n

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

patiM patiinaaM paramaM parastaad.h\-

vidaama devaM bhuvaneshamiiDyam.h .. 7..

6.7 WE WILL KNOW THIS MIGHTIEST ONE WHO IS FAR ABOVE ALL THE MIGHTY – THIS SUMMIT OF THE GODS AND THEIR GODHEAD, KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS, WHO TOWERETH HIGH ABOVE ALL SUMMIT AND GREATNESSES. LET US LEARN OF GOD FOR HE IS THIS UNIVERSES' MASTER AND ALL SHALL ADORE HIM.

You may show us one shruti where any other diety is said to be param Parastad.

 

[Raguraman]

 

Yes whose indweller is Narayana, but who himself every yuga Rudra is also in the heart of Narayana. The atma of Narayana (!)

 

......

YES this is important. BUT it is both ways. Narayan the indweller of Rudra and Rudra the indweller of Narayana! This is the truth Raghu. See it.

 

 

Whio cares about your faulty and wrong opinions ?

 

The verses are clear that Lord Narayana aka Shri Krishna is the Soul of Universe. As per Shatapatha Brahamana, Shiva is not.

 

 

This is not a simple quote. And not to be understood simply. It points to the same line as ahambrahmasmi.

 

Aham Brahmasmi is said by Brahman here and in Upanishads. This is a separate issue.

 

Still you cannot explain or accpet the Shatapatha Brahmana verses where Lord Rudra himself says that he is sinful(anapahatapaapma).

 

Can you ? You cannot, because there truth is very explicit unlike diametrically opposed to your fallacious premise.

[Raguraman]

 

That is path of Yoga. Which you can't follow nor understand. It is not a path of arguments to start with. It is Vedic.

 

All your claims are yours alone. Whether something is vedic or not, one has to know by reading Vedas.

 

Advaita is the most anti-Vedic teaching, in the sense it is daimetrically opposed to Vedic teaching.

 

As for Yoga, it is a process taught in Vedas, tha requires the right knowledge to accompany that process. Without that right knowledge from study of Vedas, whatever you do is a waste of your time.

[Raguraman]

 

Cite the verse and the context fully and we will see.

 

 

Hi Raghu Pandit.

 

I have always admired your brilliant logic. As per you EKO RUDRO DVITTIYA NA TASHTHU refers to Narayana alone. I agree.

 

So, Narayana must be sinful since He was alone. He gave birth to Brahma from whom sinful Rudra was born.

 

I think you can understand better if you read my entire arguments properly. I cannot teach you like a kid. I think you are old enough and capable of thinking by yourself. Please read my posts very carefully and fully.

 

This is not what I concluded as you allude. My point was based on Shatapatha Brahmana verses, which very clearly states that Lord BrahmA gave birth to RudrA. Hence Svetasvatara Upanishad points to Lord Narayana by the word RudrA. In Svetasvatara it does not refer to Umapati by the word RudrA but to Narayana only. There are indications. One point is giving birth to BrahmA, possessing thousands of parts etc.

 

One may ask why Narayana is mentioned as RudrA. The answer is in Bhallaveya Sruti and Visvakarma SuktA. I have explained this logically more than 3 times. Is this so difficult to understand as opposed to be accepted ? Atanu, I am sure you are not that incapable. No point in beating around the bush. If you have the honesty and courage, face the truth as stated in Vedas.

 

If one interprets as you do, then one will also have to come to the conclusion that Vedas state contradictory things and that Brahman is anapahatapaapma(This is not my conclusion, it is yours).

[Yogkriya]

 

Whio cares about your faulty and wrong opinions ?

 

The verses are clear that Lord Narayana aka Shri Krishna is the Soul of Universe. As per Shatapatha Brahamana, Shiva is not.

Aham Brahmasmi is said by Brahman here and in Upanishads. This is a separate issue.

Still you cannot explain or accpet the Shatapatha Brahmana verses where Lord Rudra himself says that he is sinful(anapahatapaapma).

Can you ? You cannot, because there truth is very explicit unlike diametrically opposed to your fallacious premise.

 

You can push and huff quoting Shatapatha Brahamana, but LORD SHIVA ain't coming down to the gaudiya demi-God level. Sad for you, but so true.

Why don't you read Rudra Upanishad to know Rudra? I can't read the biography of Nelson Mandela to know about Mahatma Gandhi! Maybe add Markandey Puran to your library too.

 

Demi-God for one, is just one of the few terms invented in the neo-krishnaism (just like "Supreme Personality of Godhead", etc). You read a verse, but lack understanding to comprehend it. You cannot come to a conclusion just by reading one text. If people had to believe your stupid assumption of Shiva being just a sinful being, then all the Shiva temples will have to close down, did Rama simply wasted his time worshiping Shiva? and Krishna who because of Shiva's mercy became the Soul of the Universe, really had no business worshipping him in the first place? It is not what you think. And I'm not going to try drag you out of your one track mind. Stay there. You look good in your own place.

I asked you to explain Anushasana parva and you totally failed to do so and dismissed it by saying it as false since it does not agree with a few verses from your shruti.

You also failed to show us one shruti where any other diety is said to be param Parastad.

 

You further said it is concocted!! By whom? You are trying to apply these rules, but do not have a proper understanding of the spirit behind them. Your spirit of understanding this is coming from Gaudiya literature. And as we all know, Gaudiyas have never been any authority on explaining Lord Shiva. Srila Prabhupda did try by giving some milk and curd example though.

And the right spirit in understanding Shiva is something that comes because of mercy from a higher source. Sorry man, bookish reading and cramming doesn't always help here. It can make you a scholar, but not a siddha. And without siddhi, your knowledge remains a theory alone. You can talk and talk about swimming, but you are not a swimmer.

 

Now, in your enthusiasm to vociferate against Shiva's high position, you are contradicting your own self. The logic you presented is foolish. If Shiva/Rudra is sinful, then by applying your logic - so is Vishnu/aka Krishna. Since Shiva keeps Vishnu in his heart always. And Vishnu/Krishna bows down to himself in Shiva's heart. How can Shiva keep Vishnu in his heart and keep meditating on him for yuga's after yuga's and still be sinful?? Or maybe he's washed off some of the sins by now? In that case every Krishna bhakta will ever remain sinful, they can hardly reach Shiva's level?! eh?

Why does Hari/Krishna bow to and worship Shiva in every incarnation?

How can Brahma give birth to a sinful personality? Explain this first! You are forcing this verse on us as an all and all conclusion of "Vedic" knowledge deciding Shiva's position, but can you really explain it? Your explaination is immature and incomplete.

 

What was the reason of his sinful "birth"?

 

Why did Rama and Krishna and Vamdev, (Vasishtha, Agastya, Upmanyu, Markandey..) worship Shiva???

 

SHIVA IS AUSPICIOUS. IF RUDRA IS SINFUL AND IF RUDRA AND SHIVA ARE THE SAME, THEN HOW CAN AUSPICOUS BE SINFUL???

If they are not the same then your statement is not for Shiva, but Rudra alone? Explain.

 

 

As far as we know, Shiva is pure cosmic consciousness that is neither born nor ends. And this small verse from Shatapatha Brahmana, is not capable of explaining Lord Shiva's full position. It just explain this Rudra's position which is not accepted by most Shaiv or Shakta or even some Vaishnava schools (except the harekrishna's of course). Period.

The Sruti says, ‘Mayam tu prakritim viddhi mayinam tu mahesvaram’. Know Prakriti to be Maya and Mahesvara

to be the wielder of Maya or Prakriti.

[Yogkriya]

 

All your claims are yours alone. Whether something is vedic or not, one has to know by reading Vedas.

Why don't the Hare Krishnas read Vedas then? Why did Prabhupada put a restriction on them reading anything besides his translated work?

The Gaudiyas are not translating Rig,Yajur and Sama Vedas. So this knowledge is not for you then I guess. Why would you even bother quoting them?

 

 

Advaita is the most anti-Vedic teaching, in the sense it is daimetrically opposed to Vedic teaching.

Actually it is the other way round. It is diametrically opposed to your personal way of thinking which is by now conditioned in bheda-bheda dvaita. So you can't understand and accept the other side of the story. And this prevents you from getting the complete picture. But you can live with half of it at least. At least something.

[tackleberry]

Why did Rama and Krishna and Vamdev, (Vasishtha, Agastya, Upmanyu..) worship Shiva???********

 

There is no evidence for any of this, and if at all it's true, it's for the purpose of asuramohana, or to delude the wicked. Guess that explains it.

 

As for Vashishta, Agastya worshipping shiva, does that make Shiva superior? If scores of people worship Bush, does that make him superior to Shiva?

 

The rest of your post is plain nonsense, it's all your opinion with no basis in the veda.