Who are we to decide which God is Supreme ?

[gokulkr]

Telling that Advaita (ie., Kaivala-advaitha) has defeated "Vada killai" group has no proper evidence & If you tell that "Sri vaishnavas" has no proper evidence of defeating other groups, it applies to you advaitins also. Moreover, no one has seen Adishankara and has no proper historical record of his existence. Of couse, Adishankara would have defeated "purva-mimasa" , "buddhists" &"jains". whereas "Sri Vaishnavas" defeated not only buddhists, jains but also advaitins & shaivas.

Telling that facts of advatins victory is real-proof whereas of "Sri-vaishnavas" is a no-proof is a great joke.

You seem to talk about numbers only. If you are so concerned about numbers, then follow "Christianism" which has huge number of followers in this world. While comparing to number of xians, advaitins are very very minute in number.So will you follow xianity just because it is global. Of course, you will not, it same applies to number games concerning of "Sri vaishnavas" & "advaitins". Just because advaitins have large followers it doesnt mean Sri vaishanva is not a genuine philosophy.

Since you are always repeating same fact i am too forced to repeat the same.

Yes Veda-vyasa has clearly quoted that "shiva purana" are tamasic. It is not ramanujacharya or madhvas quoted it.

I am not frog in a well. It seems you are like that.

[Arjuna Haridas]

Why is it so hard to accept that Shiva and Vishnu are the same god? The Vaishnava will say that Shiva is subordinate. However, this position is EXTREMELY ignorant.

 

Om Tryambakam Yajaamahe

Sugandhim Pushti Vardhanam

Urvaarukamiva Bandhanaat

Mrityor Muksheeya Ma-Amritaat

(Taittiriya Upanishad 2.7)

 

 

TRANSLATION: Let us worship Shiva (the three-eyed One), who is sacred (fragrant) and who nourishes all beings. Just as the ripe cucumber is automatically released from its attachment to the creeper, may we be liberated from death (our mortal body and personality) and be granted immortality.

This is from the Taittiriya Upanishad; an Upanishad that all Vaishnavas accept as "Sattvika" (their classification system is plagued with sectarianism anyway).

 

This quote alone should prove that Shiva is Mahadeva. Now, to take this fact home, I'll use a quote from the Bhagavata Purana/Srimad Bhagavatam:

 

"To those unaware of Your position understanding it the material way do You, by Yourself expanding Your maya, appear for the matters of creation as Me (Brahma), as Yourself for the purpose of maintenance and as Lord Trinetra (Shiva) in the end." (Bhagavata Purana 10.14.19)

Emphasis mine.

 

Now, when it comes to trying to prove to Shaivas that Vishnu is equal to Shiva, there is no need. ALL Shaivas believe in a set of "Laws" (for lack of a better word). Among these "Laws" is the fact that Shiva is real, that moksha is merging into Shiva, etc. Also among these "Laws" is the fact that Shiva incarnates as Brahma, Vishnu, and Rudra to Create, Preserve, and Destroy respectively. This is proven in the HOLY VEDAS which is why every self-realized person will tell you that there is no difference between Shiva and Vishnu (and Brahma for that matter); they are all forms of the same Supreme Deity whom Shaivas call "Shiva" (this Shiva is different from the Destroyer God Shiva, Who is called Rudra in the Vedas) and Vaishnavas call "Narayana".

 

For ANYBODY to say that the Trimurti are 3 seperate gods with one of them being supreme over the other is to reject the Holy Vedas themselves.

 

I'm a Shaiva, by the way.

[Arjuna Haridas]

 

Yes Veda-vyasa has clearly quoted that "shiva purana" are tamasic. It is not ramanujacharya or madhvas quoted it.

I am not frog in a well. It seems you are like that.

 

If this is so then Vedavyasa doesn't even know the very Holy Books he compiled (the Vedas). Do you not know that Vedavyasa also created the Bhavishya Purana, the Purana of Prophecy, and in that Purana he declares Brahma as the Supreme God?

[indulekhadasi]

Hare Krishna. When Lord Shiva himself says he is the servant of the Supreme Lord as in the Rameshwar Mahadeva scene, and it is clearly stated: Vaishnavanam yatha sambuh, Lord Shiva is the greatest Vaishnava, then why should there be doubt in people's minds? Do you not see greatness in being a servant? Do you know how the position of a servant is just as high as that of the master? Who is worshipped more, Lord Rama or Hanuman? Can anyone say? Of course Rama is the master of Hanuman but Hanuman's spiritual position is extremely high. Hanuman is an incarnation of Lord Shiva. Lord Shiva is the highest Vaishnava and he is a guna avatar of Lord Visnu. His position is unfathomable. I discourage this useless fighting and ask that people follow this process of bhakti very seriously. Thank you.

[gokulkr]

To Arjuna Haridas :

 

The quote from the sattvic upanishad hails "Lord Shiva". It is to be noted that Holy names such as "Shiva, three-eyed one, Sadashiva, Mahadeva, Sangarshana, Parameshwara" etc.. applies to Lord Narashima also. So the quote can be taken as worship of "Lord Narashima".

 

Also you are showing your ignorance by telling Veda Vyasa as ignorant. Bavishya purana is a "Rajasic Purana". Rajasic puranas should not be taken as 100% authentic.

 

Om Namo Narayanaya

[Arjuna Haridas]

 

To Arjuna Haridas :

 

The quote from the sattvic upanishad hails "Lord Shiva". It is to be noted that Holy names such as "Shiva, three-eyed one, Sadashiva, Mahadeva, Sangarshana, Parameshwara" etc.. applies to Lord Narashima also. So the quote can be taken as worship of "Lord Narashima".

 

It doesn't hail Lord Narasimha. Would it make sense if I said:

 

"Praise be to Lord Ganesha!

Ganapati

The Supreme Remover of Obstacles

To Agni I bow!"

 

No, it wouldn't. Shri Rudram Chamakam is clearly directed to Rudra, and it is the source of the beautiful "Om Namah Shivaya" mantra.

 

 

<dl><dd>namo bhavāya ca rudrāya ca namaḥ śarvāya ca paśupataye ca</dd><dd>namo nīlagrīvāya ca śitikaṇṭhāya ca</dd><dd>namaḥ kapardine ca vyuptakeshāya ca</dd><dd>namaḥ sahasrākṣāya cha śatadhanvane ca</dd><dd>namo giriśāya ca śipiviṣṭāya ca</dd></dl>The meaning is here: http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/series/shri_rudram/shri_rudram_top.htm

 

By reading the meaning, you can see that it is obviously adressed to Rudra. Let me tell you that Rudra is a Form of Shiva, and that Rudra is the God of Destruction. "Shiva" is simply the Name given to Brahman in the Shvetashvatara Upanishad. So, it would make more sense if I called Shiva "Brahman", as many get "Shiva" mixed up with Rudra.

 

So if you were to ask me to "prove" that Shiva is Supreme, then I'll just point you to the Vedas in which the Supreme is called "Brahman" and then I'll point you to the Shvestashvatara Upanishad where "Brahman" is called "Shiva". And yes, the Shvestashvatara Upanishad is authentic; ask any non-sectarian Hindu.

 

 

Also you are showing your ignorance by telling Veda Vyasa as ignorant. Bavishya purana is a "Rajasic Purana". Rajasic puranas should not be taken as 100% authentic.

 

Om Namo Narayanaya

 

I was trying to prove a point. The fact that the Vedas states that the Supreme Gods (Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva) are just forms of One God (Brahman, as stated in the Vedas) vs. the Bhagavata Purana and such claiming that Krishna and Vishnu are Supreme (interchangably) would show that Vedavyasa doesn't know the books that he compiled (the Vedas). This is saying that the Vedas are the Truth and are to be taken before Puranas; any guru will tell you this.

 

And who decides which Purana is "Sattvika", "Rajasika", and "Tamasika"? The Vaishnava scholar, of course. Where does he base this off of? Not the Bhagavad Gita, nor any Upanishad, nor any epic, nor even the Vedas. However, he takes this from the Padma Purana; the same Purana which states that one can commit sin in the name of Vishnu in and it will be a pious deed.

[indulekhadasi]

Ok, but Arjuna Haridas prabhuji, what do you think about my post?

[Arjuna Haridas]

 

Ok, but Arjuna Haridas prabhuji, what do you think about my post?

 

Namaste, and I believe that what you quoted was from the Bhagavata Purana/Srimad Bhagavatam. That Scripture is a Scripture that Shaivas reject on various bases that I don't want to get into (I don't want to outright deny and pick out faults in a Scripture of another devotee of Brahman).

 

There is something I forgot to state in my last post. "Shiva" is the Name given to Brahman in the Shvestashvatara Upanishad. "Shiva" translates to "The Benevolent One", so there is no sectarianism (even though it seems like there is) in the Name "Shiva".

[hindu12]

 

It doesn't hail Lord Narasimha. Would it make sense if I said:

 

"Praise be to Lord Ganesha!

Ganapati

The Supreme Remover of Obstacles

To Agni I bow!"

 

No, it wouldn't. Shri Rudram Chamakam is clearly directed to Rudra, and it is the source of the beautiful "Om Namah Shivaya" mantra.

 

 

<dl><dd>namo bhavāya ca rudrāya ca namaḥ śarvāya ca paśupataye ca</dd><dd>namo nīlagrīvāya ca śitikaṇṭhāya ca</dd><dd>namaḥ kapardine ca vyuptakeshāya ca</dd><dd>namaḥ sahasrākṣāya cha śatadhanvane ca</dd><dd>namo giriśāya ca śipiviṣṭāya ca</dd></dl>The meaning is here: http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/series/shri_rudram/shri_rudram_top.htm

 

By reading the meaning, you can see that it is obviously adressed to Rudra. Let me tell you that Rudra is a Form of Shiva, and that Rudra is the God of Destruction. "Shiva" is simply the Name given to Brahman in the Shvetashvatara Upanishad. So, it would make more sense if I called Shiva "Brahman", as many get "Shiva" mixed up with Rudra.

 

So if you were to ask me to "prove" that Shiva is Supreme, then I'll just point you to the Vedas in which the Supreme is called "Brahman" and then I'll point you to the Shvestashvatara Upanishad where "Brahman" is called "Shiva". And yes, the Shvestashvatara Upanishad is authentic; ask any non-sectarian Hindu.

 

 

 

I was trying to prove a point. The fact that the Vedas states that the Supreme Gods (Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva) are just forms of One God (Brahman, as stated in the Vedas) vs. the Bhagavata Purana and such claiming that Krishna and Vishnu are Supreme (interchangably) would show that Vedavyasa doesn't know the books that he compiled (the Vedas). This is saying that the Vedas are the Truth and are to be taken before Puranas; any guru will tell you this.

 

And who decides which Purana is "Sattvika", "Rajasika", and "Tamasika"? The Vaishnava scholar, of course. Where does he base this off of? Not the Bhagavad Gita, nor any Upanishad, nor any epic, nor even the Vedas. However, he takes this from the Padma Purana; the same Purana which states that one can commit sin in the name of Vishnu in and it will be a pious deed.

 

you are right on it!

[gokulkr]

 

It doesn't hail Lord Narasimha. Would it make sense if I said:

 

"Praise be to Lord Ganesha!

Ganapati

The Supreme Remover of Obstacles

To Agni I bow!"

 

No, it wouldn't. Shri Rudram Chamakam is clearly directed to Rudra, and it is the source of the beautiful "Om Namah Shivaya" mantra.

 

 

<dl><dd>namo bhavāya ca rudrāya ca namaḥ śarvāya ca paśupataye ca</dd><dd>namo nīlagrīvāya ca śitikaṇṭhāya ca</dd><dd>namaḥ kapardine ca vyuptakeshāya ca</dd><dd>namaḥ sahasrākṣāya cha śatadhanvane ca</dd><dd>namo giriśāya ca śipiviṣṭāya ca</dd></dl>The meaning is here: http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/series/shri_rudram/shri_rudram_top.htm

 

By reading the meaning, you can see that it is obviously adressed to Rudra. Let me tell you that Rudra is a Form of Shiva, and that Rudra is the God of Destruction. "Shiva" is simply the Name given to Brahman in the Shvetashvatara Upanishad. So, it would make more sense if I called Shiva "Brahman", as many get "Shiva" mixed up with Rudra.

 

So if you were to ask me to "prove" that Shiva is Supreme, then I'll just point you to the Vedas in which the Supreme is called "Brahman" and then I'll point you to the Shvestashvatara Upanishad where "Brahman" is called "Shiva". And yes, the Shvestashvatara Upanishad is authentic; ask any non-sectarian Hindu.

 

 

 

I was trying to prove a point. The fact that the Vedas states that the Supreme Gods (Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva) are just forms of One God (Brahman, as stated in the Vedas) vs. the Bhagavata Purana and such claiming that Krishna and Vishnu are Supreme (interchangably) would show that Vedavyasa doesn't know the books that he compiled (the Vedas). This is saying that the Vedas are the Truth and are to be taken before Puranas; any guru will tell you this.

 

And who decides which Purana is "Sattvika", "Rajasika", and "Tamasika"? The Vaishnava scholar, of course. Where does he base this off of? Not the Bhagavad Gita, nor any Upanishad, nor any epic, nor even the Vedas. However, he takes this from the Padma Purana; the same Purana which states that one can commit sin in the name of Vishnu in and it will be a pious deed.

 

Veda vyasa had compiled vedas in kaliyuga for sake of mankind and he himself quoted clearly that shiva-purana is tamasic. It only shows your ignorance of telling that "Veda-vyasa" doesnt know meaning of vedas.

 

Moreover, if you are talking of "Svetavatara Upanishad", i can talk of "Narayana Upanishad" which clearly tells Brahman is "Narayana". If you can reject "Srimad-bhagavatham", i can also reject "Shiva-purana". If you tell vaishnavas as secretarial, then it applies to shaivas also.

 

If you can find "Om Namah Shivaya" mantra from Rudram, then i can find "Om Namo Narayana" from "Narayana-Shuktha" or "Narayana-Upanishad".

 

Just because "Ganesh" is hailed in Rudram, it doesnt mean that it applies to your shaivate-shiva. Rudra,Shiva are the holynames of "Lord Narashima". Refer "Narashima purana" for this.

 

If you can claim quotes from "advaita-vedanta" i can also claim quotes from "vishisdvaita-vedanta".

 

So please stop pretending that as though Shaivas are non-secreterial and vaishnavas as secreterial. Watever you argue i can also post a equal arguement.

 

If yuo want tp pray Brahman as Shiva, then go with it. But dont degrade Vaishnavas by telling them secreterial or Vaishnavam as false. If you tell Shiva as Brahman, i will also tell Narayana as Brahman with appropriate quotes.

 

Om Namo Narayanaya

[hindu12]

 

Veda vyasa had compiled vedas in kaliyuga for sake of mankind and he himself quoted clearly that shiva-purana is tamasic. It only shows your ignorance of telling that "Veda-vyasa" doesnt know meaning of vedas.

 

another bs. ved vyasa did not call shiva purana tamasic.

[gokulkr]

Yes, Shiva purana is Tamasic. Refer Padma purana for this.

[hindu12]

 

Yes, Shiva purana is Tamasic. Refer Padma purana for this.

 

padma purana is not authentic though

[Smiley]

I wonder, does the Supreme really want us to debate this or

concentrate on teaching those that have NO knowledge of Veda?

 

I think it can be safely be said that Vaishnavs see Sri Vishnu/Rama/Krishna

as supreme, Shaivas see Sri Shiva as supreme and

Shaktas see Sri Mata Devi as supreme.

 

 

Debate has been going on between vishnu-shiva supremacy from daya of dawn. But bad news for some sect (particularly to saivatees) is that Great Acharyas like Ramanujacharya, Madhvacharya, Vallabhacharya, Nimbarkacharya, Vedanta Desika etc.. have proved clearly that "Lord Narayana is Supreme Brahman" and they have defeated shaiva-scholars , saiva-philosophies.

So no use in debating on the matter which has already been solved & proved.

 

Moreover, we are all petty people. We have to accept the sayings of acharyas. Acharyas say "Lord Narayana" is Supreme.

 

Moreover Puranas are just symbolisation. Each purana hails each diff God is supreme. So debating on basis of puranas is foolish & mindless. Moreover, Saivatees dont tend to come out of "shiva purana". Wat else can they do ? Because apart from shiva-purana they dont have anything in their hands.

 

All the 4 great philosophies - Suddhadvaita, Vishistadvaita, Dvaitadvaitha, Dvaitha point out only "Lord Narayana" as Supreme. So saying that these 4 philosophies are meaningless by shaivatees is foolishness, because all these acharyas have already defeated shaivas and proved "Lord Vishnu" is supreme.

 

Om Namo Narayanaya

[Arjuna Haridas]

 

Yes, Shiva purana is Tamasic. Refer Padma purana for this.

 

The same Purana which states that you can commit sin in the name of God and it will be worship? Meaning that I you could come to my house, kill my family, say it was "in the name of God", and then it'll be more pious than chanting 20 rounds of japa.

 

I'm more of a Shakta, then a Shaiva. However, I feel my need to support the Shaiva position (as my philosophy is Shaiva-like, replacing "Shiva-Shakti" with just "Shakti").

 

 

 

Moreover, if you are talking of "Svetavatara Upanishad", i can talk of "Narayana Upanishad" which clearly tells Brahman is "Narayana". If you can reject "Srimad-bhagavatham", i can also reject "Shiva-purana". If you tell vaishnavas as secretarial, then it applies to shaivas also.

 

If you can find "Om Namah Shivaya" mantra from Rudram, then i can find "Om Namo Narayana" from "Narayana-Shuktha" or "Narayana-Upanishad".

 

Just because "Ganesh" is hailed in Rudram, it doesnt mean that it applies to your shaivate-shiva. Rudra,Shiva are the holynames of "Lord Narashima". Refer "Narashima purana" for this.

 

If you can claim quotes from "advaita-vedanta" i can also claim quotes from "vishisdvaita-vedanta".

 

So please stop pretending that as though Shaivas are non-secreterial and vaishnavas as secreterial. Watever you argue i can also post a equal arguement.

 

If yuo want tp pray Brahman as Shiva, then go with it. But dont degrade Vaishnavas by telling them secreterial or Vaishnavam as false. If you tell Shiva as Brahman, i will also tell Narayana as Brahman with appropriate quotes.

 

Narayana = Brahman

Shiva = Brahman

 

When will the forever arch-nemeses realize this? Shiva is another name for Brahman, and it means "The Benevolent One". Narayana is another name for Brahman, and it means "The Never-Ending One".

 

I reject the Shiva Purana, also. Ganesha isn't hailed in the Rudram (He was part of my example).

 

Rather, we should go grind it down to the bone. Who gives Brahma, Shiva, and even Vishnu their powers? Who is it that is the Supreme Soul, immanent in everything beautiful and ugly? Who is the Supreme Soul that causes Vishnu to eternally sleep (until this Reality lifts it from Him), Shiva to become angry, and Brahma to desire only to create?

 

Who is the Supreme Soul hailed in all the Vedas? Who is it that allows Ganesha to remove obstacles, Brahma to create, Vishnu to preserve, Shiva to destroy, Indra to win his battles, and Agni to manipulate fire? Once you can discover this, then you'll see that only this Supreme Soul is worthy of worship, and that by worshiping Shiva, Vishnu, Brahma, Surya, Ganesha, or whoever else, you are ultimately worshiping this Supreme Absolute.

 

This Supreme Absolute is Nirguna (without attributes) and Saguna (with attributes). This Supreme Absolute is She Who is Shakti, the Divine, Eternal, All-Powerful Energy. She Who incarnates as Maa Parvati, Maa Lakshmi, and Maa Saraswati. She Who incarnates as Maa Durga, and from this Beautiful incarnation incarnates as Maa Kali. The Divine Mother Who is always with us, and Who holds our hands even when it seems all hope is lost.

 

She Who is powerful enough to make even Shiva bow at His knees, and yat the same time is She Who is compassionate enough to make Shiva cry. Without Her love, what are we? If I were hated by Her, I would rather be banished out of existence, at least. With Her love, She can even elevate us to be the object of worship by the Suprme Trimurti, if She so Wills it.

 

This Supreme Soul is Maa Devi, the Divine Mother.

 

She is so compassionate that even the likes of Gandhi called Her "Mommy". When the world is harsh to me, I silently cry to Maa Devi, Who resides in my soul, and She comforts me and sometimes gently guides me, telling me "Do this, my child".

 

In Hinduism - or rather, in life - you can only tell others the truth; you can't force them to accept it. However, through ups and downs, thick and thin, She's always with you, residing in your soul, sitting on that Thousand-petaled lotus, allowing all of your action as part of Her Divine Play (and She is Called "Lalitha" - She Who Plays). Even in rejecting Her is She there. Even after I spit in Her face (literally), She still held my hand to this day, where I recite Her Glories to you.

 

May She stop Her Play on you and guide you to the same position that even Vishnu Himself is at - as Her devotee, and hopefully up to Divine Eternal Union with Her; the Supreme Joy.

[gokulkr]

Devi bagavatham is the only text supporting "Shaktism". It is not even one of the 18 puranas. So how it can be considered as authentic ?

 

If padma purana is not authentic, then shiva-purana or devi-bagavatham is also not authentic.

 

If you find some stories in "Padma purana" is ungood, i can also find violent blood-shed stories in shiva-purana (where vira-badra is shown hurting women-goddesses also without any mercy), while comparing to this "Padma-purana" is far superior. Equal "Violent" stories are found in "devi-bagavatham" also.

 

Om Namo Narayanaya

[Arjuna Haridas]

 

Devi bagavatham is the only text supporting "Shaktism". It is not even one of the 18 puranas. So how it can be considered as authentic ?

 

If padma purana is not authentic, then shiva-purana or devi-bagavatham is also not authentic.

 

If you find some stories in "Padma purana" is ungood, i can also find violent blood-shed stories in shiva-purana (where vira-badra is shown hurting women-goddesses also without any mercy), while comparing to this "Padma-purana" is far superior. Equal "Violent" stories are found in "devi-bagavatham" also.

 

Om Namo Narayanaya

 

The Devi Bhagavatam, the Markendaya Purana (one of the major 18 Puranas), and the Devi Sloka of the Rig Veda.

 

"Violent" stories in the Devi Bhagavatam? Besides stories of Divine Justice (eg. Maa Durga killing demons), then what can you find? It really has nothing to do with violence. It has to do with contradicting the Vedas and itself and promoting evil while calling it "good".

 

Ultimately, it comes down to which Puranas you choose, which Upanishads you choose, and how you interpret the Vedas. But to call a Purana "Tamasic" or "Rajasic" simply because it says that another God[dess] is Supreme is just blatent sectarianism, as this "classification system" is found nowhere else but in the Vaishnava Upanishads. All other sects accept all of the Puranas, keeping in mind that the Inner Power of the gods are really being praised, and not the gods themselves (be is Shakti for Shaktas or Shiva for Shaivas or generic Brahman for Smartas).

 

The sectarianism is also blatent in the Dvaita Sampradaya. Did you not read how they underminded the Gaudiya Vaishnava sub-Sampradaya on their website and ultimately called it "bogus" and called Prabhupada a false guru? Or how they call Vishishtadvaitins outright "wrong" (this was directed towards every Vishishtadvaitin that hung around a Dvaitin forum)? Sectarianism will never finish until people know the Truth; and the Vedas surely claim that from Shakti, or more generically, Brahman, comes the Powers which make all of these gods (Shiva, Indra, Vishnu, Agni, Vaayu, Varuna, etc.) great.

 

I don't agree with Muhammad's philosophy which was written in the Qur'an and Ahadith, but he makes a great point in the Qur'an; that people who disagree should come to common grounds and let each other be.

[gokulkr]

I didnt told violent blood shed stories are present in "devi-bhagavatham", but such kinds of stories are found in "shiva-purana", where veera-bhadra hurting even women goddesses is too much. Since in "devi-bhagavatham" killing of poor animals as sacrifice is justified, i find it violent.

 

Markendaya purana also hails "Narayana" is ultimate creator or brahman. It doesnt hail other gods as brahman. I dont know how you tell "Markendaya purana" as a saktha purana.

 

Secreteranism is also found equally among shaivam & sakthism, where Vishnu & other gods are degraded as much as possible through their stories. Theres no use in blaming Madhvas alone.

 

I am trying to prove my point that Telling Vaishnavas alone as secreterial and shaiva/shaktaas/advaitins as non-secreterial is pure nonsense. Every religion or sect is secreterial in their own-sense.

 

Om Namo Narayanaya

[bhu raman]

The moment you declare your god is great then it shows that you are showing your arrogance! The moment you declare that your religious philoshphy is the supreme then you show that it is based on foolish premise!

 

All gods devi, vishnu or siva have come down to the devotee who prayed with all humility and gave away their soul. This applies also to christians and muslims. God can be sakaara, niraakara, saguna or nirguna or anything you want. See the vachana of sivavakkiyar (who was also called thirumazhisai azhwar) which says in tamil:

"Natta kallai deivam enru naalu putpam sathiye

Sutri vandu muna muna enru sollu mandiram edada?

natta kallum pesumo naadan ullirukkaiyil

sutta satti sattuvam karichchuvai ariyumo?"

 

The chhithar also composed:

"Nandavanaththilor andi

avan naalaaru madhamaai kuyavanai vendi

kondu vandanoru tondi

adhai koothadi koothadi pottudaiththandi"

 

All these poems transcend philosophies.

Gods become servants of their devotees!

It all depends on the intensity of their meditation.

[sreevalsakolathayar]

The lord may be laughing seeing all these .

all are one and the same paramathma.

vishnu and siva are one and the same. it is clearly stated in bhagavtham sivapuranam,vedas,upanishads.

 

radhesyam

har har mahadev

[anam]

moderator's note: we have sent you a PM

[chandu_69]

 

Lord Shiva is the highest Vaishnava and he is a guna avatar of Lord Visnu. His position is unfathomable. I discourage this useless fighting and ask that people follow this process of bhakti very seriously. Thank you.

 

Well said

[chandu_69]

 

The lord may be laughing seeing all these .

all are one and the same paramathma.

vishnu and siva are one and the same. it is clearly stated in bhagavtham sivapuranam,vedas,upanishads.

 

radhesyam

har har mahadev

Thanks; May be the egoistic people realise this truth and stop this nonsensical fighting.

[bhaktajan]

ghastliness is a rasa that one may pursue.

 

And which may be annihilated by kshatriyas at the behest of the Brahmanas.

 

To bad about this kali-yuga factor that makes everyone a simple artisan for hire.

 

.............................................................

Well I will concede that the material world is seperate from the 'sat' [absolute-eternality] state of spiritual existance --so the material cosmos is certainly a place where no gentleman wants to stay too long-- so a certain empowered deva must represent these cosmos when no one else is qualified to man the position.

[vks]

 

Can anyone tell me what you people going to get IF anyone (acharya or normal person) able to proof whether Maha Vishnu or Mahareswa is superior?

 

Answer - Nothing, because your idiotic debates are based on your own Egoistic characteristics. And because of this Ego, Hindusm is slowly dying.

 

 

About 500 years ago, Hindusm have been spread to most countries in Asia. Hindus have civilizations in Malaya, Java, Indo-China (Thailand, Loas, Vietnam etc) and all the way to Afghanistan. Today, it is struggling in India where Indians themselves are busy killing off this religion.

 

And what does Hindus doing? Instead of protecting their own beliefs and way of life, you people busy debating which aspect of God is superior - the Maintainer or Destroyer. Not only that, you come online and spreading this idiotic debate and giving bad impression to those who wants to learn about Hindusm as well.

 

 

You have hit the nail right on the head...very nicely said and very true...i admit these are the mistakes done by Hindu's throughout the world...