Is Lord Shiva the son of Brahma?

[Guest guest]

Or is He the father of Lord Vishnu, the father of Brahma?

[Guruvani]

 

Or is He the father of Lord Vishnu, the father of Brahma?

 

Lord Vishnu does not have a father. He is an eternal manifestation of Krishna.

Lord Siva is a combination of three kinds of transformed consciousness known as vaikarika, taijasa and tamasa.

 

By expanding Himself as Lord Siva, the Supreme Lord is engaged when there is a need to annihilate the universe. Lord Siva, in association with maya, has many forms, which are generally numbered at eleven. Lord Siva is not one of the living entities; he is, more or less, Krishna Himself. The example of milk and yogurt is often given in this regard -- yogurt is a preparation of milk, but still yogurt cannot be used as milk. Similarly, Lord Siva is an expansion of Krishna, but he cannot act as Krishna, nor can we derive the spiritual restoration from Lord Siva that we derive from Krishna. The essential difference is that Lord Siva has a connection with material nature, but Vishnu or Lord Krishna has nothing to do with material nature.

[Gaurasundara]

Or is He the father of Lord Vishnu, the father of Brahma?

According to Srimad Bhagavatam, Shiva is the son of Brahma. Please see SB 3.12.4-20 for further information ().

[Guest guest]

 

According to Srimad Bhagavatam, Shiva is the son of Brahma. Please see SB 3.12.4-20 for further information.

According to Shiv Mahapurana, Shiva is the father of Vishnu and Brahma.

[Guest guest]

 

Lord Vishnu does not have a father. He is an eternal manifestation of Krishna.

By expanding Himself as Lord Shiva the Supreme Lord is engaged when there is a need to annihilate the universe. Lord, in association with maya, has many forms, which are generally numbered at eleven. Lord Siva is not one of the living entities; he is, more or less, Krishna Himself. The example of milk and yogurt is often given in this regard -- yogurt is a preparation of milk, but still yogurt cannot be used as milk. Similarly, Lord is an expansion of , but he cannot act as Krishna, nor can we derive the spiritual restoration from Lord Sivathat we derive from Krishna. The essential difference is that Lord Sivahas a connection with material nature, but Vishnu or LordKrishna has nothing to do with material nature.

The Veda base is actually Hare Krsna base. And accepts and propagates Vedas exclusively from the Hare Krsna point of view only.

Vishnu is an expansion of Krsna is a Hare Krsna theory. Again, Krishna is Vishnu avatara not otherwise as explained in the scriptures. The Hare Krsnas are a special lot and are on their own. "Shiva is related to material mature" but not Krsna is incomplete understanding!! And you need to expand this explanation more. "He cannot act as Krsna!" Why does he need to "act" as Krsna? What's the need? Read Yog vashishtha on more complete underestanding on Lord Shiva. Again, gaudiya understanding of Lord Shiva is completely biased, incomplete and one sided. And since this forum is essentially Hare Krsna forum, only this incomplete theory and half one sided HK interpretation will prevail and others will be rejceted. Nothing new! But doesn't matter. Call him Shiva or call him anything. His nature is incomprehensible by us.

Scriptures like the Shiva Gita, Shiva Samhita and Shiv Mahapurana state how Shiva expands himself as Brahma, Vishnu and Rudra to carry out various tasks in the universe. Namah Shivaya!

[Guest guest]

 

And accepts and propagates Vedas exclusively from the Hare Krsna point of view only.

 

The Rg. Veda (Shatapatha Brahmana) says the Shiva is born from Brahma (the same point being made in Srimad Bhagavatam, Mahabharata among others). Also see Maha-upanishad and many other sruti statements to the same effect (e.g. the birth of Rudras including Shiva as in Brhadaranyaka-upanishad). Some attempt to equate those to an incarnation of Shiva (e.g. equating with Sri Hari's incarnations as child of Devaki-Vasudeva etc.), but cannot be sustained since no such thing is mentioned is sruti and also the Shatpatha states that Lord Shiva says that he is sinless and asks for names from Lord Brahma.

 

As such only if you agree on holding sruti as a pramana, is any discussion possible.

 

 

Scriptures like the Shiva Gita, Shiva Samhita and Shiv Mahapurana state how Shiva expands himself as Brahma, Vishnu and Rudra to carry out various tasks in the universe. Namah Shivaya!

 

Since they contradict the sruti, there is no need to attempt and give any explanation for those.

[Guest guest]

 

The Rg. Veda (Shatapatha Brahmana) says the Shiva is born from Brahma (the same point being made in Srimad Bhagavatam, Mahabharata among others). Also see Maha-upanishad and many other sruti statements to the same effect (e.g. the birth of Rudras including Shiva as in Brhadaranyaka-upanishad). Some attempt to equate those to an incarnation of Shiva (e.g. equating with Sri Hari's incarnations as child of Devaki-Vasudeva etc.), but cannot be sustained since no such thing is mentioned is sruti and also the Shatpatha states that Lord Shiva says that he is sinless and asks for names from Lord Brahma.

As such only if you agree on holding sruti as a pramana, is any discussion possible.

Since they contradict the sruti, there is no need to attempt and give any explanation for those.

Go back and read numerous posts. If you carefully read Bhagwatam, Brahma worships Shiva as the supreme Lord on whome the whole universe depends. Do you think you are superior than Brahma. If so then all your explainations are useless and you can keep them on to your good self.

In general, it is a futile exercise to discuss anything with HKs, since they put down every other line of philosophy, are arrogant and are programmed by default to accept any other philosophy than their very own.

Your quotations of scriptures are only interpreted inline with your own school of thought and not original Vedic school of thought that accepts Shiva and other Gods' worship is well documented. If you talk about Mahabharata and accept Krishna's words, why don't you accept his words to Yudhishthira on Shiva??? Why don't you accept Shiva Gita and Shiav samhita? I know why! You school doesn't follow the yoga of pranayama, kundalini, and other vedic divine practices. It follows only sankirtana. But doesn't mean that other systems are futile or low. Your definitions of tamasic and satvic scriptures and shrutis etc are one sided and aim to support your philosophical view point only and you use the "Vedic" term to support a 500 year old philosophical system. not that it is wrong. But wrong is your ever aggressive and agenda of debunking all others to perch yourself over other systems! And I'm tired of this attitude.

As far as discussion is concerned, then I'm not into futile Vedantic discussions where a person wastes his life's vital energy currents into finding quotations and telling others!!! Hare Vasudeva!

[Guest guest]

 

The Rg. Veda (Shatapatha Brahmana) says the Shiva is born from Brahma (the same point being made in Srimad Bhagavatam, Mahabharata among others). Also see Maha-upanishad and many other sruti statements to the same effect (e.g. the birth of Rudras including Shiva as in Brhadaranyaka-upanishad). Some attempt to equate those to an incarnation of Shiva (e.g. equating with Sri Hari's incarnations as child of Devaki-Vasudeva etc.), but cannot be sustained since no such thing is mentioned is sruti and also the Shatpatha states that Lord Shiva says that he is sinless and asks for names from Lord Brahma.

As such only if you agree on holding sruti as a pramana, is any discussion possible.

Since they contradict the sruti, there is no need to attempt and give any explanation for those.

 

This birth of Shiva is an old rant that the HKs use. if you read Shiv Mahapurana, Shiva clearly states to Vishnu and Brahma that he is adi-anadi - onewithout a beginning and an end! Where is the question of his birth then? His beginning is not even known by Brahma and Vishnu/Hari.

Accept it or don't. Your choice. I don't expect you to accept it. Besides why do you use the Upanishads and other puranas when you don't fully accept them at all? Just to argue? Why don't you stick to Bhagwatam BG and CC and other books translated by Prabhupada and otehr Gaudiyas?

 

Since I'm writing in a "Spiritual discussion" forum, I don't have to adhere to or agree to gaudiya views alone, I think. For that I can go to Iskcon or Hare Krsna forums! The Shaivas and Shaktas which are equally bonafide Vedic branches (and this is acknowledged by the HKs too) consider Lord Shiva as Supreme. So you cannot put down their belief. You can be happy considering Vishnu as Krishna's avatara. To be honest a majority of indians are surprised when they come across the internal HK beliefs. Anyways, as I said, this is an old argument. And nothing has come out of it so far. So let's save our shakti for collecting some funds for another temple repairs in mayapur or Vrindavan ;-)

Regards!

P.S. There are other more ancient places of pilgrimages than Vrindavana and mayapura! Why don't we go to Kashi/Varanasi for a change? I'm sure Krsna can come there too! Provided we have the will and devotional energy to call!

[sumedh]

 

The Shaivas and Shaktas which are equally bonafide Vedic branches (and this is acknowledged by the HKs too) consider Lord Shiva as Supreme. So you cannot put down their belief.

 

Except that Shaivas/Pashupatas/Shaktas/... have never established their beliefs using Vedas; most Shaivas have taken to advaita (which at least tries to establish its beliefs) severely compromising their own philosophy since advaita says that Lord Shiva (among others) is a figmant of imagination.

[Guest guest]

 

Except that Shaivas/Pashupatas/Shaktas/... have never established their beliefs using Vedas; most Shaivas have taken to advaita (which at least tries to establish its beliefs) severely compromising their own philosophy since advaita says that Lord Shiva (among others) is a figmant of imagination.

 

You take a certain figmant of a philosophy and twist it and show it in your own twisted interpretation's shadow. What do you know about imagination. Learn to meditate first. Understand and accept advaita first. You may have read it to understand a few general points so that you can put it down in your 'preaching'.

What you are writing is your own imagination and imagination of a crowd that u interact with Sumedh babu! And this is the arrogance that I'm against that a number of HKs exhibit. Your establishing something means nothing!!! A lawyer can establish truth as false and false as truth by arguing and providing a so called 'evidence' and interpreting in a certain way. And this is what you do with the Hindu scriptures indeed. And now you claim that all the other branches of Vedic knowledge have "never established" their beliefs "using" Vedas!! What rubbish! Where did the Shaiva beliefs come from? or the Shakta beliefs come from? How many times did you read Devi Bhagwatam??? And How many mantra sadhna and purashcharan did you perform from it and see the Devi's form and swarupa and its glory? You do that and then talk about establishing things! Talk is cheap. Simply endlessly quoting scriptures and interpreting them in line with own sampradayas and then overgeneralizing and judging others is what you do!! This serves no purpose except caressing ur own inflated ego! You have put down all other sampradayas in one sentence! This is sheer arrogance on your part!! You do not depict the humbleness of a Vaishnava. And hardly depict what Shri Chaitanya said that a devotee should be humbler than the blade of grass even when it is stepped upon. But you come up with a huge arrogance to put a few quotes that you know from your book collection and internet copy paste, and put down all other Vedic Sampradayas, saints, Gurus and devotees. Shame on you Sumedh. Your informational knowledge means nothing. Now you can flame back!

[Guest guest]

 

Except that Shaivas/Pashupatas/Shaktas/... have never established their beliefs using Vedas; most Shaivas have taken to advaita (which at least tries to establish its beliefs) severely compromising their own philosophy since advaita says that Lord Shiva (among others) is a figmant of imagination.

And if you are so smart in quoting and interpreting etc. Why don't you comment on Brahma worhipping Shiva as the Supreme controller? Why did he need to do that? Obviously he didn't consult the HKs otherwise he wouldn't have behaved so. Right? Cuz you would've told him oh no Shiva is ok but he's just a demi-God! He's curd not milk! 78 percent. Isn't it? lol !!!

 

Also, Shrimad Bhagawatam accepts a lot of other things besidesa few quotes, that the Gaudiyas turn a blind eye to. Read this example:

 

SB 4.6.42: Lord Brahma said: My dear Lord Shiva, I know that you are the controller of the entire material manifestation, the combination father and mother of the cosmic manifestation, and the Supreme Brahman beyond the cosmic manifestation as well. I know you in that way.

 

Here Lord Brahma considers Lord Shiva as the Supreme Brahman AND beyond!!

 

This is more appropriate to this thread from Shrimad Bhagwatam:

 

SB 8.7.20: The devas observed Lord Shiva sitting on the summit of Kailsa Hill with his wife, Bhavani, for the auspicious development of the three worlds. He was being worshiped by great saintly persons desiring liberation. The devas offered him their obeisances and prayers with great respect.

Therefore when a devotee of Lord Shiva worship him as supreme and thus gain liberation.

 

What is there to be established by the Shaivas and Shaktas here? They are busy worshipping, not bringing up a village panchayat (village small governing body in India made of five elders) and book quoting.

So what you are saying is motivated by envy and will to put down all other sampradaya which clearly is simply religious politics and has nothing to do with pure spiritual life. Unfortunately such "preaching" is taken up by newbies and accepted as final truth. This is a sad trend that some relious political flag holders pursue and they should be debunked.

Talk fare and respect others. As far as the Hare Krishna philosophy is concerned, then all the other Vedic sampradayas - The Shaivas, the Shaktas, Smartas are accepted as bonafide leading to liberation.

 

But again, as far as "establishing their beliefs" are concerned, you being from Gaudiya school and Iskcon (I suppose) should not be even getting into this conflict, since your own philosophies are not clear and dualistic constantly in conflict within itself and with the rest of the world's philosophies. There is no one opinion on issues within the Gaudiya math and Iskcon or various sprouts and branches and break away communities.

There is teh GBC that considers Shri Goswami Tulsidas written RamCharitmanas (Ramayana) as mayavadi or whatever.. and not acceptable. And there are those who accept it with high respect. You guys debunk Advaitas but Vishwambar Mishra's Gurus were advaitas from whom he received the mercy, knowledge and initiation that made him the Sri Chaitanya later on. And now you guys redicule and debunk advaita. oh .. Only if you could ask Chaitanya himself! Instead of talking on his behalf as him!!

This short sighted agenda of proving we hare Krsnas are wiser, better and righteous and only exalted bhaktas than all others available is rubbish.

And i condemn this attitude.

Pure Bhakti, mutual compassion and respect is welcome.

[sumedh]

 

What you are writing is your own imagination and imagination of a crowd that u interact with Sumedh babu! And this is the arrogance that I'm against that a number of HKs exhibit.

 

 

This serves no purpose except caressing ur own inflated ego! You have put down all other sampradayas in one sentence! This is sheer arrogance on your part!!

 

Firstly, learn to keep sentimentalism away from a discussion especially personal remarks to be taken in any sense of seriousness.

 

 

You take a certain figmant of a philosophy and twist it and show it in your own twisted interpretation's shadow. What do you know about imagination. Learn to meditate first. Understand and accept advaita first. You may have read it to understand a few general points so that you can put it down in your 'preaching'.

 

For the record, tell me which branch of advaita you are talking about. Even Madhusudan saraswati diverges from that preached by Shankaracharya in many places. Then tell us which books on advaita written by the advaita acharyas have you ever read (lets take any of those by Shankaracharya, Vacaspati Mishra and Madhusudan Saraswati for a start).

 

 

And now you claim that all the other branches of Vedic knowledge have "never established" their beliefs "using" Vedas!! What rubbish! Where did the Shaiva beliefs come from? or the Shakta beliefs come from?

 

You ought to answer your own question. After Shankaracharya dismissed the Shaiva schools of his time as unvedic, many took to advaita mixed with their own philosophy over a period of time. Most of the practises of current Shaiva/Shaktas come from tantras and other books rather than the vedic ones.

 

 

So what you are saying is motivated by envy and will to put down all other sampradaya which clearly is simply religious politics and has nothing to do with pure spiritual life. Unfortunately such "preaching" is taken up by newbies and accepted as final truth. This is a sad trend that some relious political flag holders pursue and they should be debunked.

 

Such "newbies" include stalwarts like Shankara/Madhva/Ramanuja/... and others. Read vedanta sutra bhashyas of any of them; read Madhusudan saraswati's advaita siddhi where he even resorts to name calling for tattvavadis; read MBTN and other books by Madhva etc. Don't try to hide your own ignorance of our tradition under the cloak of political correctness.

 

The sad truth is that persons ignorant of even the basics of vedanta are nowadays posing as "gurus", and preach all kinds of contradictions and imaginations in the name of hinduism and vedanta.

 

 

And if you are so smart in quoting and interpreting etc. Why don't you comment on Brahma worhipping Shiva as the Supreme controller? Why did he need to do that? Obviously he didn't consult the HKs otherwise he wouldn't have behaved so. Right? Cuz you would've told him oh no Shiva is ok but he's just a demi-God!

 

Since this comes from a smriti and says something that contradicts the vedas, it does not require much interpretation (though such are indeed possible and provided). Suffice to say that other shastras (including Rig Veda, Mahabharata and other smrits shastras) mention of no such thing for samudra manthan. Elsewhere the Bhagavata itself says that Lord Shiva attained auspicousness (the meaning of word Shiva) on accepting the water of ganges on his head. For instance Rig Veda has to say about the consumption of halahala by Lord Shiva:

 

Rg Veda, 10.136.*

 

vAyurasmA upAmanthat.h pinashhTismA kunannamA |

keshI vishhasya pAtreNa yad.hrudreNApibat.hsaha ||

 

which says that Vayu squeezed, kneaded and crushed a small portion of the poison for Shiva and drank the poison along with Shiva.

 

 

What is there to be established by the Shaivas and Shaktas here? They are busy worshipping, not bringing up a village panchayat (village small governing body in India made of five elders) and book quoting.

 

So why are you here and indulging in the same?

 

 

You guys debunk Advaitas but Vishwambar Mishra's Gurus were advaitas from whom he received the mercy, knowledge and initiation that made him the Sri Chaitanya later on. And now you guys redicule and debunk advaita. oh .. Only if you could ask Chaitanya himself! Instead of talking on his behalf as him!!

 

His guru Sripad Ishwara Puri was not a follower of advaita, though one may say that Keshava Bharati from whom he accepted sanyasa belonged to advaita but that does not count for much.

 

Seriously though please do some reading of Chaitanya Bhagavata/Charitamrta before trying to increase our knowledge of that subject.

 

 

But again, as far as "establishing their beliefs" are concerned, you being from Gaudiya school and Iskcon (I suppose) should not be even getting into this conflict

 

All these words on some supposition, which itself may be in serious error !!

 

 

You have put down all other sampradayas in one sentence!

 

No the issue is much deeper, but i doubt you have the patience to try and understand it. Any person with any degree of intellectual honesty will not accept two contradictory statements as both being true. Vaishnava philosophy, Shaiva philosophy as well as Shakta philosophy contradict each other in description sambandha jnana, abhideya as well as prayojana. If one accepts Shaiva philosophy, it automatically rejects the vaishnava philosophy since it directly contradicts the shaiva one. So be honest and say that you do not accept Vaishnava philosophies as valid.

 

Same way advaita and dvaita/vishishtadvaita philosophies are completely at odds with one another (even dvaita and vishishtadvaita are at odds but one finds that their abhideya is more or less similar). If someone says that he/she accepts all three it simply means that either he/she is ignorant of all the three, or he/she is simply fickle minded trying to be politically correct (or whatever term you want to use here).

[Guest guest]

 

And if you are so smart in quoting and interpreting etc. Why don't you comment on Brahma worhipping Shiva as the Supreme controller? Why did he need to do that? Obviously he didn't consult the HKs otherwise he wouldn't have behaved so. Right? Cuz you would've told him oh no Shiva is ok but he's just a demi-God! He's curd not milk! 78 percent. Isn't it? lol !!!

 

Also, Shrimad Bhagawatam accepts a lot of other things besidesa few quotes, that the Gaudiyas turn a blind eye to. Read this example:

 

SB 4.6.42: Lord Brahma said: My dear Lord Shiva, I know that you are the controller of the entire material manifestation, the combination father and mother of the cosmic manifestation, and the Supreme Brahman beyond the cosmic manifestation as well. I know you in that way.

 

Here Lord Brahma considers Lord Shiva as the Supreme Brahman AND beyond!!

 

This is more appropriate to this thread from Shrimad Bhagwatam:

 

SB 8.7.20: The devas observed Lord Shiva sitting on the summit of Kailsa Hill with his wife, Bhavani, for the auspicious development of the three worlds. He was being worshiped by great saintly persons desiring liberation. The devas offered him their obeisances and prayers with great respect.

Therefore when a devotee of Lord Shiva worship him as supreme and thus gain liberation.

 

 

 

Lets look at more quotes from the Bhagavata Purana

 

SB 1.1.1: O my Lord, Śrī Kṛṣṇa, son of Vasudeva, O all-pervading Personality of Godhead, I offer my respectful obeisances unto You. I meditate upon Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa because He is the Absolute Truth and the primeval cause of all causes of the creation, sustenance and destruction of the manifested universes. He is directly and indirectly conscious of all manifestations, and He is independent because there is no other cause beyond Him. It is He only who first imparted the Vedic knowledge unto the heart of Brahmājī, the original living being. By Him even the great sages and demigods are placed into illusion, as one is bewildered by the illusory representations of water seen in fire, or land seen on water. Only because of Him do the material universes, temporarily manifested by the reactions of the three modes of nature, appear factual, although they are unreal. I therefore meditate upon Him, Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa, who is eternally existent in the transcendental abode, which is forever free from the illusory representations of the material world. I meditate upon Him, for He is the Absolute Truth.

 

dasame dasamam laksyam

asritasraya-vigraham

sri-krsnakhyam param dhama

jagad-dhama namami tat

 

"The Tenth Canto of the Bhagavata reveals the tenth subject, who is the shelter of all. He is known as Sri Krsna, and he is the ultimate source of all the worlds. Let me offer my obeisances unto him."

 

SB 10.1.3: The Supersoul, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Śrī Kṛṣṇa, the cause of the cosmic manifestation, appeared in the dynasty of Yadu. Please tell me elaborately about His glorious activities and character, from the beginning to the end of His life.

[Guruvani]

 

Scriptures like the Shiva Gita, Shiva Samhita and Shiv Mahapurana state how Shiva expands himself as Brahma, Vishnu and Rudra to carry out various tasks in the universe. Namah Shivaya!

 

But, in the Vaishnava tradition it is accepted that Vyasadeva wrote the Vedas and wrote his final commentary on Vedanta in the form of Srimad Bhagavatam.

 

So, Vaishnavas accept the Srimad Bhagavatam as the ultimate spiritual authority and the cream of the Vedas.

 

Vaishnavas don't accept that Siva Gita, Samhita etc. are the essence of the Vedic knowledge.

That is Srimad Bhagavatam and it gives Supremecy to Lord Krishna above Lord Siva.

 

So, you can't defeat the Vaishnavas using Shaivite literatures.

 

Because in proper Vedic sequence the Srimad Bhagavatam is the topmost scripture of the Vedic canon.

 

In the Vedic pantheon Lord Siva is the guna avatara of Tama guna and the destroyer of the worlds.

 

He is not the creater or maintainer.

Brahma is creator and Vishnu the maintainer.

 

Brahma is guna avatar of Raja guna.

Vishnu is guna avatar of Sattva guna.

 

Siva cannot create or maintain a universe.

But, he can destroy when the time is right.

 

Siva does not have a planet in the Vaikuntha world.

But, he goes to the planet of Sankarshan in Vaikuntha after the destruction of the universe.

 

Lords Siva's abode is not eternal in the universe.

[Guest guest]

 

No the issue is much deeper, but i doubt you have the patience to try and understand it. Any person with any degree of intellectual honesty will not accept two contradictory statements as both being true. Vaishnava philosophy, Shaiva philosophy as well as Shakta philosophy contradict each other in description sambandha jnana, abhideya as well as prayojana. If one accepts Shaiva philosophy, it automatically rejects the vaishnava philosophy since it directly contradicts the shaiva one. So be honest and say that you do not accept Vaishnava philosophies as valid.

Same way advaita and dvaita/vishishtadvaita philosophies are completely at odds with one another (even dvaita and vishishtadvaita are at odds but one finds that their abhideya is more or less similar). If someone says that he/she accepts all three it simply means that either he/she is ignorant of all the three, or he/she is simply fickle minded trying to be politically correct (or whatever term you want to use here).

Yes Sumedh. This is what is to be understood. And it doesn't come simply from "reading" and re-quoting endlessly shrutis, smritis, etc and "discussing and arguing Vedanta!

Since all these sampradayas title philosophical lines contradict each other, they should be at war with each other all the times. Shiva says he is the weilder of prakriti and maya, but he is not affected by any of these. Even though he is the weilder of all this, He, the Maheshwara is beyond it. And the differences seen in the world is the nature of maya and prakriti. Just like the the sun is one, but its reflection in different objects make it look many. But i doubt too that you have the depth, patience or understanding to understrand this Sumedh Unless and until, strict sampradaya flag bearers go beyond their petty attachments of one or the other aspect of this divinity, they can't have the vision to look beyond maya and prakriti that keeps them bound to their respective limited ideologies. To look beyond this is to start understanding the Ishwara tattva. The Shiva tattva, as i prefer to call it. And I said about your lacking understanding and depth not because I wanted to reciprocate your flame fling at me, but because it is so, since you are attached to the ideology your sampradaya has thrusted upon you and automatically consider other sampradayas as "against", non competitive, in conflict with and "contradictory"!! You will remain stranded in this contradiction Sumedh. You will, just as most of the other HKs will. So was SP!!!!!!! You are not programed to enquire into the nature of this diversity and know the tattva beyond it. Though on a theoretical level, you do propound tatva gyan and loads of other fancy vocabulary to impress the masses, but in reality, the understanding behind it does not come from reading alone. Reading theory and preaching it to others and experiencing divinity face to face are different levels. When you will know that Maheshwara tattva, these contradictions will dissapear. But easier said than done. Right? So here we are again on the sampradayik bhed-bhava or how you call it Achintya Bheda-Bhed philosophy!!

[Guest guest]

 

Firstly, learn to keep sentimentalism away from a discussion especially personal remarks to be taken in any sense of seriousness.

There are a few HKs that I take seriously anyways. You are not in the list yet.

 

 

For the record, tell me which branch of advaita you are talking about. Even Madhusudan saraswati diverges from that preached by Shankaracharya in many places. Then tell us which books on advaita written by the advaita acharyas have you ever read (lets take any of those by Shankaracharya, Vacaspati Mishra and Madhusudan Saraswati for a start).

I don't talk for record. Madhusudan diverged on his personal experience. The problem is that you are trying to discuss Vedanta with a tantrik yogi!! Tantra is a practical science. And the yogis you quote sometimes were yogis first and proved the quotations written in scriptures to themselves first on the basis of their personal sadhna. In other words, these quotes were realized knowledge by the writers. You don't realize this knowledge. You simply cram it and preach it without realizing it first! So you can't understand the intricacies of these experiences.

 

 

 

You ought to answer your own question. After Shankaracharya dismissed the Shaiva schools of his time as unvedic, many took to advaita mixed with their own philosophy over a period of time. Most of the practises of current Shaiva/Shaktas come from tantras and other books rather than the vedic ones.

Shankracharya was a staunch Shaiva himself. He did dismiss a few practices. He did not dismiss All the Shaiva schools of his time! This is an inaffective jab! Practical knowledge had to come from Tantras. Because the tantras show the path to sadhna. Shankaracharya was a sadhka first, then a Vedantist. He spoke with knowledge realized!! And that's why he is worship-able. Without the tantras, the practical sadhna paths would have been lost.

 

 

Such "newbies" include stalwarts like Shankara/Madhva/Ramanuja/... and others. Read vedanta sutra bhashyas of any of them; read Madhusudan saraswati's advaita siddhi where he even resorts to name calling for tattvavadis; read MBTN and other books by Madhva etc. Don't try to hide your own ignorance of our tradition under the cloak of political correctness.

I've read enough of your tradition. Now its time for you to read my tradition. Ready?

 

 

The sad truth is that persons ignorant of even the basics of vedanta are nowadays posing as "gurus", and preach all kinds of contradictions and imaginations in the name of hinduism and vedanta.

Well the HKs do collect a lot of chanda in the name of vedas and Krshna. And you do preach contradictions too. So called laptop sporting globe trotting Gurus who have learnt to quote a few scriptures. Nothing more. No Siddhis! A Guru without a siddhi is not a Guru. What will he give to a disciple if he himself is incomplete? Simple lecture! To have a high talk about vedanta without its practical aspect is incoplete knowledge and is disuading in this age.

 

 

 

Since this comes from a smriti and says something that contradicts the vedas, it does not require much interpretation (though such are indeed possible and provided). Suffice to say that other shastras (including Rig Veda, Mahabharata and other smrits shastras) mention of no such thing for samudra manthan. Elsewhere the Bhagavata itself says that Lord Shiva attained auspicousness (the meaning of word Shiva) on accepting the water of ganges on his head.

 

Shiva is always auspicious. Before he agreed with Bhagiratha to bear the Ganges and let it come to earth from the heavens. He was and is auspicious, that's why he agreed to this grand task that no other God could. This shows his benevolance and auspiciousness. There are tantrik branches of mantras that are not in strict compliance with the Vedas! So what? They work! They serve the purpose! one example is the Sabar mantra sadhnas. They are not Vedic! But you can (ok. not you! lol) , but one can attain highest success through this sadhna paddhati devised by Shri Guru Gorakhnath, who himself was considered Shiva avatara! Now you remain entangeled in shrutis, smritis definitions and keep arguing! But in fact you are an opportunist lot. I've seen HKs debunking Hinduism on all fronts, but very suddenly becoming 'Hindus' in another country when they are opposed by the local churches and governments and when needed Hindu funds. Similarly, you preach why read Vedas when we have Bhagwatam and Gita. and what krsna said is final. But when you have to argue, you would quote everything from everywhere and not even accept words said by Krsna himself, if they are not turfing along your sampradaya line of philosophy. Pretty opportunistic and double standard.

 

 

For instance Rig Veda has to say about the consumption of halahala by Lord Shiva:

Rg Veda, 10.136.*

which says that Vayu squeezed, kneaded and crushed a small portion of the poison for Shiva and drank the poison along with Shiva.

You have to understand the concept of "vayu" here. But since you are not a yogi and don't give importance to prana, apana, it is hard to tell this to you. But Shiva is the controller of prana. He is not only Bhole Nath, but Prana Nath. Vayu here is refered to as Prana Vayu. And Vayu is also the vayu devta. Shiva had complete control over vayu and Prana vayu while drinking the halahala. You just got hold of one vayu verse and are now ready to minimise Shiva's drinking of halahala.

 

 

 

So why are you here and indulging in the same?

Indulging in the same? U mean panchayati style arguing? lol! Sumedh!! I give up dude!! Who can argue with you guys? I haven't crammed so many quote and canto numbers even! ha!

For some reason the HKs are all out to mend the world's religious and spiritual sampradayas as per their taste that they call Vedic. even though they have a 500 year or even less than that old tradition. It has nothing to do with the vedic sadhna and spiritual training culture. This is a very very judgemental sampradaya. one that judges every other thing in regards to everything! Well, you started it. You posted a highly judgemental statement as a big concern and put down, that has emerged due to your non understanding of the diversity and contradictions in the world. Since they are in contradiction with your thoughts, then they are bad! Maybe you are in contradiction with theirs? No? eh?

 

 

 

His guru Sripad Ishwara Puri was not a follower of advaita, though one may say that Keshava Bharati from whom he accepted sanyasa belonged to advaita but that does not count for much.

Seriously though please do some reading of Chaitanya Bhagavata/Charitamrta before trying to increase our knowledge of that subject.

Ishwara Paad was neither a Gaudiya Goswami!! he did come from a tattvavada arguing school. by the way, I wasn't talking about this tattvawad and Bhed-vada school of Mahavacharya when I talked about the Meheshwara tattva. And finally the young Chaitanya did ask Keshava Bharati to grant him mercy and initiation into sanyasa that is necessary to rocketeer one's life drastically towards his spiritual goal.

 

 

All these words on some supposition, which itself may be in serious error !!

Yes we all do err... don't we sumedh? You do belong to the HK cult. Don't you? I used cult, cuz we all worship Krsna. But the HKs are a special lot. Who have perched themselves above everybody else. Doesn't this make you feel so special? It does sorts of...

[Guest guest]

 

Lets look at more quotes from the Bhagavata Purana...

 

 

I'll look at more and more and yet more quotes from you Sumedh. But first answer the quotes and comment on them. Answer the quotes from the highest scripture, the amala Purana that you rever. Answer the worshipping of Lord Shiva by Brahma himself as the supreme controller. Don't evade this.

[Guest guest]

 

Lets look at more quotes from the Bhagavata Purana

oh well this was posted by some 1234! But Sumedh, you didn't say anything to the quotes of Brahma worshipping Shiva. Nor did 1234 say anything to it? Just a new set of quotes! But no explainations indeed!

[Guest guest]

 

But, in the Vaishnava tradition it is accepted that Vyasadeva wrote the Vedas and wrote his final commentary on Vedanta in the form of Srimad Bhagavatam.

 

So, Vaishnavas accept the Srimad Bhagavatam as the ultimate spiritual authority and the cream of the Vedas.

 

Vaishnavas don't accept that Siva Gita, Samhita etc. are the essence of the Vedic knowledge.

That is Srimad Bhagavatam and it gives Supremecy to Lord Krishna above Lord Siva.

 

So, you can't defeat the Vaishnavas using Shaivite literatures.

 

Because in proper Vedic sequence the Srimad Bhagavatam is the topmost scripture of the Vedic canon.

 

In the Vedic pantheon Lord Siva is the guna avatara of Tama guna and the destroyer of the worlds.

 

He is not the creater or maintainer.

Brahma is creator and Vishnu the maintainer.

 

Brahma is guna avatar of Raja guna.

Vishnu is guna avatar of Sattva guna.

 

Siva cannot create or maintain a universe.

But, he can destroy when the time is right.

 

Siva does not have a planet in the Vaikuntha world.

But, he goes to the planet of Sankarshan in Vaikuntha after the destruction of the universe.

 

Lords Siva's abode is not eternal in the universe.

]

 

I've heard this gaudiya claim that Bhagwatam is superior to all teh Vedas, puranas, upanishads and everything written by Gods, sages and men ever!

Nothing new. And even amongst the various translations of thie Bhawatam - ONLY the one translated and purported by the Gaudiyas n Prabhupada should be considered authentic, because their purports and translations show things in the needed gaudiya light and makes the world udnerstand it from the perspective that the gaudiyas have wanted.

 

Vaishnava misconception that Shiva can't maintain or creat comes from their inability to understand Lord Shiva's true nature and position. What else can be expected of them when all they understand about Shiva is curd-milk alegory. Shiva himself says to Rama, that he creates as Brahma, preserves as Vishnua and destroys as Rudra/Shiva. The HKs love to associate and keep Shiva confined to 'material nature' and 'tamo Guna' whereas he is above all these gunas!

 

And, I'm really out of this hostel business where various floors are allocated to various gods by teh HKs. And where Lord Shiva is still awaiting his room.

First of all I don't have the defeating Vaishnavas agenda like the vaishnavas defeating rest of the people and uplifting their huge inflated egos and relax well prasad fed tummies. But since you mentioned, if one can't defeat Vaishnavas using Shaiva scriptures simpl because they don't accept them, then it is equally not possible for the vaishnavs to defeat Shaivas using their Chaitanya Charitamrita and misinterpretations of scriptures! What's teh take dude!? Wanna argue more? or let's go back to our beads? What's better eh?

[Guruvani]

Shaivas are always coming in the forum and claiming Siva as supreme, yet they never present any proper shastric proof or references.

 

How convenient that none of the Shaiva scriptures are available on the internet for research and study?

 

Could that have anything to do with the fact that most all the Shaiva priests are professional priests who never publish Shaiva shastra for free on the internet for everyone to see for themselves what they say?

 

Unless and until the Shaivas can actually show proper shastric references that establish Siva as supreme above Lord Vishnu or Lord Krishna, then none of their claims have any substance and are just fanatic, sentimental ideas that really can't stand up against a comprehensive analysis of Hindu scriptures.

 

In Mahabharata Krishna is supreme.

In Ramayana Rama is supreme.

 

In the vast majority of Hindu scriptures Vishnu is always supreme.

 

The claim that Shiva is supreme is mostly coming from smarta brahmans whose family earns their livelyhood as professional priests that specialize in material benedictions in exchange for puja of Shiva.

 

The Shaivas are mostly concerned with material benedictions and unconcerned with humanitarian work for the welfare of the mankind.

 

Shaivas worship god for material gain.

 

It's quite obvious.

 

Vaishnavas worship God for spiritual gain.

 

So, that is a big difference.

 

Worship for material gain is not a transcendental religion.

 

It's not even a religion as far as that goes, because religion is about spiritual advancement - not material gain.

 

Worship of Siva is always accompanied with a prayer for some material benediction.

It's about personal gain - not selfless service to God.

[Guest guest]

The vaisnava pays proper respect. Lord Sivas position is unattainable. Lord Brahma is not to that level, because the jiva can attain the position of Lord Brahma. Not so with lord Siva. His potency is greater than the jiva, therefore, it is not improper, for even the vaisnava, to refer to Lord Siva as Supreme.

 

While a neophyte vaisnava may, out of sectarian concern, disrespect Lord Siva. They may do battle with the saivites, yet a mature Vaisnava recognizes Lord Siva as one of the twelve great authorities on devotional service to the Supreme Lord (bhakti yoga). Even when Lord Siva appears as shankaracarya to create monistic philosophy (to retrieve the buddhists to the Veda), Shankaracara composes "Worship Govinda", and the Vaisnava accepts this teaching of the founder of mayavada philosophy in full.

 

I have always been respectful to those who worship Lord Siva. In fact, even if these folks have impersonal understanding of the absolute truth, by worshipping the personality of Lord Siva, absorbing themselves in his pastimes which are utterly nectarian, they are gradually developing a higher taste, leading to paramatma and even bhagavan realization.

 

Hare Krsna, all glories to the great mahabhagavata Lord Siva, om sivaya namah. Ys, mahaksadasa

[Guest guest]

 

Shaivas are always coming in the forum and claiming Siva as supreme, yet they never present any proper shastric proof or references.

How convenient that none of the Shaiva scriptures are available on the internet for research and study?

Could that have anything to do with the fact that most all the Shaiva priests are professional priests who never publish Shaiva shastra for free on the internet for everyone to see for themselves what they say?

 

As far as coming to the forum is concerned, then I fully understand that this is a HK forum and there cannot be any non-biased discussion possible. It will be always in favor of Gaudiyas, Iskcon and Harekrsna, even though thr forum is sort of divided into different sections and harekrsna sections and krsna and gaudiya sections are separate. But HKs naturally are spilled over all the forums, cuz it is run by them. But just on a wishy-washy level, the forum I'm writing at is called Spiritual Discussions. And the question raised is about Lord Shiva!!! I also go to Shaiva forums where i never ever find this sort of Vaishnava bashing! Once I posted a message on a Shaiv Forum

about the Hare Krsnas bashing Shiva and Shivaites and the reply I got was that I we should not be wasting time in discussion such useless issues with you, cuz you don't underdstand Shiva tattva anyways. And the discussion was closed. It was nto closed by the mederators, but simply the Shaivs were not really interested in putting down HKs or vaishnavas. Even though they believe Shiva to be supreme. This is how they behave. Here I've witnessed non HK winning guests or even members simply and without any reason whatsoever, banned and their posts removed, however logical.

 

Secondly, there are ample Shaiva literature available through books and there is material on the internet. Swami Shivananda and Subramaniyam Swami have produced ample litereture on the net. If you want, get an electronic copy of Shiva Maha Purana in short. But you are an advertising and marketing company marketing your brand of religion abroad. So anyone else who is not into marketing business is naturally unappealing to you. Rare knowledge is not always readily available in abundance. God is not cheap and does not sell on the streets of New York or Vrindavana.

 

 

Unless and until the Shaivas can actually show proper shastric references that establish Siva as supreme above Lord Vishnu or Lord Krishna, then none of their claims have any substance and are just fanatic, sentimental ideas that really can't stand up against a comprehensive analysis of Hindu scriptures.

 

Well, the level of judgemental fanatism we witness within sects as the HKs, is beyond comparison. This is one sect, that goes around the world beating its own drum, trumpeting how great they are trying to "establishing" that they are the only bonafide ones and everyone else is not bonafide and non-established in the HK misinterpreted books.

 

 

In Mahabharata Krishna is supreme.

In Ramayana Rama is supreme.

In the vast majority of Hindu scriptures Vishnu is always supreme.

Right at that. In Mahabharata, Krishna is supreme and this supreme worships performing rigorous and hardest austerities standing on one leg and living on just air for months to please Shiva and gets boons for spiritual and material success and benedictions beyond comparison that only Bhole Nath, the Maheshwara can give and permeates the whole universe through his power. NO. The Shaivs didn't write this story. Krsna himself descibes it to Yudhishthira. But why would YOU HKs read and accept it? Just pass on. Its not bonafide for your cult.

 

In Ramayana Rmaa is supreme, and he worships Lord Shiva. He takes up Shaiv sadhna on more than one instance in his life when he needed the most to make through the difficult times. Again, the supreme hero of Ramayana and Mahabharata worshipped Shiva!! They had NO problems doing that! But in kaliyuga a cult comes up and starts claiming that its a problem worshipping Shiva and he can be worshipped only for material gains and is a "demi"-God and is worshipped by people of 'low intelligence'.

Ha! Having said that, this quotation of Krsna has been very wide-spread and well propagated by the HKs to bring the audience under their fold only! A well rehearsed marketing line! But they ignore the fact that Krsna himself worshipped Shiva! Low intelligence? lol! Krsna himself also instructs Arjuna to worship the Gods (actually we don't use the term "Demi" in original Vedic culture.) and nourish them with yagya and offerings for his own spiritual elevation in the Gita.

 

 

The claim that Shiva is supreme is mostly coming from smarta brahmans whose family earns their livelyhood as professional priests that specialize in material benedictions in exchange for puja of Shiva.

 

Wrong. The claim that Shiva is supreme comes also from the Bhagwatam and from Lord Brahma. The claim comes from the Shiva Gita and Lord Rama. The claim also comes from krsna!!! And the claim comes a number of bonafide revered and highly respected scriptures as Shiva Gita (u don't accept and are under no obligation to accept it), Shiva samhita, shiva Maha purana, the Mahabharata and numerous other scriptures and finally come from Sage Vashishtha, Vishwamitra, Atri Pulatsya, Kannad, and numerous others, when prabhupada or Chaitanya wasn't even born! Your cult came into being 500 years ago. Vedic? yea right! So Vedic that you claim that the Vedic mantras and sadhnas don't work in kaliyuga!

 

 

The Shaivas are mostly concerned with material benedictions and unconcerned with humanitarian work for the welfare of the mankind.

Shaivas worship god for material gain.

It's quite obvious.

Vaishnavas worship God for spiritual gain.

So, that is a big difference.

Worship for material gain is not a transcendental religion.

It's not even a religion as far as that goes, because religion is about spiritual advancement - not material gain.

Worship of Siva is always accompanied with a prayer for some material benediction.It's about personal gain - not selfless service to God.

 

woW! Its the HKs who go from door to door begging for money!!!

yesterday I come as a common man to a temple and don't get treated well. tomorrow I come there and donate 30,000$ (I actually got a sponsor to do that) and I am a VIP! money talks! If we see the HK templese around the world, we can see the power and money struggle galore! New Vrindavan? well, I won't mention its history. we know it all. Most of the HK templese have changed their original programs to Hindu preaching, so that they can get in the Hindu money and funding to survive. The American HK has gone bankrupt and the number one agenda on their mind is how to get more money and bring in more people who will be free working hands for lip service and bring money.

I don't say that other non HK organizations are not doing this. So what's the deal here 'prabhu' man?

 

Lord Shiva is known as Bhole Nath, one who is easily pleased and is simple hearted. And people come to him for anything, spiritual or material. Shiva is ascetic. If you look at his form he is sitting completely detached, ashes smeard on his body.

Though he'd grant material benedictions to a anyone who comes to him witha pure heart, he will grant spiritual benedictions too. And to come to Shiva, one has to be spiritually elevated. An ordinary soul cannot do that.

Read the Shaiv Philosophy. The bhakti, surrender and service aspects are not any lower than the HK ideals. Just that the Shaivs are not much into marketing and sankirtana or Rath yatra doesn't mean that they are not devotees. The position of Lord Shiva or his devotees cannot be compromised. Nor should the position of Lord Hari be compromised. But you will have to compromise this God positioning agenda and putting down judgemental HK agenda, otherwise you don't get the BTGH ((Back to GodHead) ticket.

And this is claimed by Vishnu and Shiva both. Not any sampradaya. There is no higher authority than them. Not Prabhupada, not administrator of some forum nor you or me.

Namah shivaya!

[Guest guest]

 

The vaisnava pays proper respect. Lord Sivas position is unattainable. Lord Brahma is not to that level, because the jiva can attain the position of Lord Brahma. Not so with lord Siva. His potency is greater than the jiva, therefore, it is not improper, for even the vaisnava, to refer to Lord Siva as Supreme.

 

While a neophyte vaisnava may, out of sectarian concern, disrespect Lord Siva. They may do battle with the saivites, yet a mature Vaisnava recognizes Lord Siva as one of the twelve great authorities on devotional service to the Supreme Lord (bhakti yoga). Even when Lord Siva appears as shankaracarya to create monistic philosophy (to retrieve the buddhists to the Veda), Shankaracara composes "Worship Govinda", and the Vaisnava accepts this teaching of the founder of mayavada philosophy in full.

 

I have always been respectful to those who worship Lord Siva. In fact, even if these folks have impersonal understanding of the absolute truth, by worshipping the personality of Lord Siva, absorbing themselves in his pastimes which are utterly nectarian, they are gradually developing a higher taste, leading to paramatma and even bhagavan realization.

 

Hare Krsna, all glories to the great mahabhagavata Lord Siva, om sivaya namah. Ys, mahaksadasa

 

Dear Mahaksadasa,

 

I've talked to senior Vaishnavas from the Gaudiya Math and Iskcon. And I was glad to know their exalted views on Lord Shiva. Though they still consider Lord Krsna to be supreme. Which is perfectly fine! They should. Because they worship Krsna and he is their ishta.

But I didn't see the Shiva/Shaivs putting down tone or agenda from them. At least not from the senior mosts that I talked to. Some of them simply evaded the issue humbly saying that they are fallen souls and not competent at all to say anything on Lord Shiva's exalted position. I offered them my obeisances and respects and we shared some sweet moments on spiritual issues .

[Guest guest]

Guest 3,

 

Before accusing others of fundamentalism and selective quoting, take a good look at yourself in the mirror - you would have us believe that the Srimad Bhagavatam and Mahabharata lead to a Shaivite conclusion, when ALL serious scholars, both traditional and modern, who have studied these scriptures state emphatically that they are unarguably Vaishnava in orientation. Talk about picking isolated verses out of context and promoting a biased point of view! Your sickeningly immature and asinine ramblings on this thread betray a deranged, disturbed mind on the rampage, out on an ego trip trying to win pointless, time-wasting cyber battles.

 

You are entitled to your opinion, but so is everybody else. You quote from texts which you consider to be valid in support of your ideas, as do those who disagree with you. Therefore, if you were honest to yourself, you would respect their particular viewpoint, and they should reciprocate likewise with yours. Since this thread began, there has been nobody more hysterical, intellectually dishonest and hostile to the opinion of others than you have been. You are guilty of the very same charges you condemn your opponents of and more. This is plainly obvious to anyone who reads the postings on this discussion attentively. At the end of the day, we will all know in due course who is right and who is not, who is God and who is not, whose sadhana is superior etc etc. So, instead of wasting your own precious time and that of other people by coming up with such unnecessary baloney, focus yourself on what matters to you and let the others do the same. Or is what you're doing on this forum what truly counts in your life? Well, if that is the case, I beg Devadideva Mahadeva to shower his infinite compassion on you!

 

All glories to the great Lord Shiva, who is Mukundam-Priyam, very dear to Lord Mukunda, and by whose causeless mercy I was guided to the lotus feet of Svayam Bhagavan Sri Krsna and his most munificent of avataras, Sri Krsna Caitanya Mahaprabhu, through the grace of Jagad-guru Prabhupada Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Gosvami Thakura and his illustrious disciples and grand-disciples!

 

OM NAMAH SIVAYA!

 

SRI RAMA JAYA RAMA JAYA JAYA RAMA!

 

HARE KRSNA HARE KRSNA

KRSNA KRSNA HARE HARE

HARE RAMA HARE RAMA

RAMA RAMA HARE HARE

[Guest guest]

 

Guest 3,

Before accusing others of fundamentalism and selective quoting, take a good look at yourself in the mirror - you would have us believe that the Srimad Bhagavatam and Mahabharata lead to a Shaivite conclusion, when ALL serious scholars, both traditional and modern, who have studied these scriptures state emphatically that they are unarguably Vaishnava in orientation. Talk about picking isolated verses out of context and promoting a biased point of view! Your sickeningly immature and asinine ramblings on this thread betray a deranged, disturbed mind on the rampage, out on an ego trip trying to win pointless, time-wasting cyber battles.

 

You are entitled to your opinion, but so is everybody else. You quote from texts which you consider to be valid in support of your ideas, as do those who disagree with you. Therefore, if you were honest to yourself, you would respect their particular viewpoint, and they should reciprocate likewise with yours. Since this thread began, there has been nobody more hysterical, intellectually dishonest and hostile to the opinion of others than you have been. You are guilty of the very same charges you condemn your opponents of and more. This is plainly obvious to anyone who reads the postings on this discussion attentively. At the end of the day, we will all know in due course who is right and who is not, who is God and who is not, whose sadhana is superior etc etc. So, instead of wasting your own precious time and that of other people by coming up with such unnecessary baloney, focus yourself on what matters to you and let the others do the same. Or is what you're doing on this forum what truly counts in your life? Well, if that is the case, I beg Devadideva Mahadeva to shower his infinite compassion on you!

OM NAMAH SIVAYA!

 

 

Dear Maharaja Vikramaditya!

 

Won't it be better if you would meet me in a real battle field. Then you would be able to vent out your frustration and aggression aptly. But it suits here too. Thanks for your heartily kind words. Truly gaudiya and truly in the Prabhupada spirit!!!

To answer a few of your concerns, statements and vociforations, I would start by saying that yes i do indeed look myself in the mirror apart from the time when I shave! And I see a person who does not believe in a** licking and wishy-washy 'haribol prabhuji' kind of superfluous social goody-goody humbleness behind which there sometimes is no real goodiness. The moment I don't accept your point of view I get what you just vomited!!! This is the test of humbleness. And you fluncked it with zero marks.

 

I never claimed that the Mahabharata and Ramayana give out Shaiva conclusions! But what I wrote is true and you made no educated or sincere attempts to debunk it. You have nothing to say about the facts that Rama and Krsna worshipped Shiva. further more Rama worshipped the Sun God traditionally, being a Surya Vanshi. Prabhupada didn't teach this. So what??Whatever you just blurted out has nothing to do with intelligence, something that you accuse of lacking in others. Nor has it got to do anything with Vaishnava culture. Anyways, nothing new really. There are Vaishnava bhaktas who are ready to pull out a dagger and there are those who are more restrained and remind themselves of the Vaishnava ideals of compassion and kindness and humility.

This "vaishnava better" and "Shaivas .. doubtful hmmm and bad guys?" attitude is what is conflicting in the first place and I have tried to explain it. For those whose pitta dosha and high blood pressure is enraged, should re-read the conclusion with a cooler mindset. Unfortunately You have made no worthwhile intelligent attempt to come to a conclusion on this Vikram. I wasn't answering you in the first place. But since you jumped in with your daggers, lets face the facts that I've been trying to draw your attention to. I wrote a reply to Sumedh 'prabhu' explaining that yes God is attainable through different bonafide Vedic branches of Knowledge. Not just Gaudiya, HK. Why do HKs propagate that every other sampradaya is down and out and low laying and they are the only high flyers in the spiritual world?? Worship Krsna and consider him GodHead. This is acceptable and fine. But why condemn others? This is the issue!! And none of your attempts to put down others would bear auspicious results. Like Sumedh said before, the sampradayas have contradictory philosophies. And Shaivs have Shiva as supreme and Vaishnavas have Vishnu/Hari as supreme. Amongst them also Ramanandis consider Rama to be supreme and HKs imagine Rama to and even Vishnu (?!) to be Krsna's 'expansion'. Both are right in their places. And they should worship thier own forms of the Lord. But when you walk around the world telling all others that they are at fault and that you are only right people walking on this planet with exclusive rights to preach.

 

The elementary mistake that you make is to abuse and belittle the Ishta devata of a sadhak/devotee. Each has his own Ishta devata. Yours is Krsna, someone else's is Rama, yet another's is Shiva. And they have right to worship them as supreme. And since you don't follow this protocol, you creat conflicts everywhere. I know the reason of your anger. Because I pointed out the conflicts within your own sampradaya. But hey, you attract this kind of conflict anyways. Respect others, and you earn respect. Otherwise, its otherwise.