Is Lord Shiva a demi-god?

[tackleberry]

Many people are offended by the word 'demigod.' But surely, except Vishnu, no one can be Supreme. There cannot be 'two' supreme entities. So Shiva is NOT supreme, even though the word demigod may not be palatable to some. So a better choice would be 'devata.' Anyway, here is the episode which clearly shows that even Shiva is under Narayana's control.

 

Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 8.12.27tām anvagacchad bhagavān

bhavaḥ pramuṣitendriyaḥ

kāmasya ca vaśaḿ nītaḥ

kareṇum iva yūthapaḥ

SYNONYMS

tām — Her; anvagacchat — followed; bhagavān — Lord Śiva; bhavaḥ — known as Bhava; pramuṣita-indriyaḥ — whose senses were agitated; kāmasya — of lusty desires; ca — and; vaśam — victimized; nītaḥ — having become; kareṇum — a female elephant; iva — just as; yūthapaḥ — a male elephant.

TRANSLATION

His senses being agitated, Lord Śiva, victimized by lusty desires, began to follow Her, just as a lusty elephant follows a she-elephant.

--

 

All this doesn't mean Shiva isn't worthy of worship. On the contrary, one must worship Shiva to bless us with a pure mind, a mind that can focus on Vishnu with perfect attention. But to worship him as supreme is certainly an offense, at least sheer stupidity, according to Vishnu Himself. Here's the relevant verse:

------

 

Bhagavad-gītā 7.23

antavat tu phalaḿ teṣāḿ

tad bhavaty alpa-medhasām

devān deva-yajo yānti

mad-bhaktā yānti mām api

SYNONYMS

anta-vat — perishable; tu — but; phalam — fruit; teṣām — their; tat — that; bhavati — becomes; alpa-medhasām — of those of small intelligence; devān — to the demigods; deva-yajaḥ — the worshipers of the demigods; yānti — go; mat — My; bhaktāḥ — devotees; yānti — go; mām — to Me; api — also.

TRANSLATION

Men of small intelligence worship the demigods, and their fruits are limited and temporary. Those who worship the demigods go to the planets of the demigods, but My devotees ultimately reach My supreme planet.

--

 

Hopefully, people can see the light.

[Amlesh]

No one in this entire cosmos can claim to describe Him. He is dearest to Hari. Any comment whether +ve or -ve won't sound good.

[kimfelix]

In the Shvetashvatara Upanishad, the Shiva Purana, the Linga Purana and the teachings of the Shaiva Acharyas such as Meykandar Shivam it is established that Shiva is the Supreme Deity.

 

In the Mahabharata both Shiva and Vishnu are revealed as the Supreme Deity and in some passages Krishna is shown to be a devotee of Shiva. In the Nara-Narayaniya Parvan of the Mahabharata's Shanti Parvan (Book 12) Narayana Rishi says to Bhagavan Shiva, yas tvam vetti sa mam vetti yas tvam anu sa mam anu, navayor antaram kimcit, 'One who knows you knows me as well, one who follows you follows me; there is no difference at all between us.'

 

So the matter is a complex one and different texts seem to give different versions on this matter. There are many indications in various scriptures that Shiva is the Supreme Deity. Sometimes the statements appear sectarian, establishing Shiva as superior to Vishnu, and sometimes they are syncretist, revealing Shiva and Vishnu as two aspects of the same deity. And of course there are also sectarian statements from the Vaishnava perspective establishing Vishnu's supremacy over Shiva.

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam

 

 

I am out of here before I loose my sanity by constantly hearing abuse to DevAdhi Deva Mahadeva.

You have not proved anything, nor does the Gita verse which is nothing but condemnation of jivas material desires.

I can provide from the same Bhagvatam eulogising Lord Shiva but what’s the point when I see people like you can not even be civil to your own fellow Vaishnvas, Sri Vaishnva can not stand Madhvacharya they in turn can not accept GV and the gaudiyas fighting amongst them self.

Enough to realise this is not Dharma.

I realise now it would be too much to expect from people like you to respect Lord Shiva.

There is no such entity as Demi God in Vedas.

As a plural noun, devA refers to the Gods ~ especially the 33 prime Deities ~ and deva can refer generally to any image of Divinity or Deity.

 

And there is only ONE Mahadeva, who is certainly not a “partial” deity!

 

Jai Shree Krishna

[guliaditya]

First of all "Demi-god" is a very wrong word.It should be devtaa instead of demi-god.

Secondly why every time questions on supremacy is being asked????

Whether csonsidering Lord Narayana as supreme is sufficient to attain Vaikunth Dham???? Whether our purpose of getting Krishna's prema bhati will be attained???

Read the conversation between Yudhisithira & Shree Bhishma in Mahabharata. Shree Bhishma adviced Yudhisithira to ask Lord Krishna who is Lord Narayana himself, to describe about shiva tattva. Shree Bhishma was not capable & neither Lord Brahma is capable too.

Read HariHar stotra recited by Markendaya rishi on the advice of Lord Brahma in Harivansh Purana.

By this fact whether it is not clear that Lord Shiva is not a so called "Demi-god"

Lord Narayana is Lord Shiva hence dont try to differentiate. Many great acharyas/rishis have explained in their writings but still we are debating on this silly point.Lord Narayan himself have revealed this fact then where is the confusion???

 

Pranaam

[kimfelix]

Regarding the Bhagavad Gita: I think it is significant that in Arjuna's description of his vision of the vishva rupa he does not mention Shiva as being present within the form he sees, although he does mention Brahma.

[LoveroftheBhagavata]

Tackleberry is a Madhvaite, so no surprises as to his humorous "exposition". My offer to him still stands good. I have scores of documents on Advaita Vedanta which in no uncertain terms tell of the foolishness of attempting imaginary demarcations between different deities, as they are all Brahman manifest. Ask Baobabtree how many such files I've sent him, Tackle. If you want to open your mind to something other than the Dvaiti falsehoods you have been indoctrinated with, just buzz. And since I am fatigued of casting pearls before swines, do not expect me to respond here. If you want to take the debate further, that can be done privately. You can send a message.

[Amlesh]

From Ramcharitramanas, Sri Tulsidas points out that, no one can get the favour of Sri Ram if someone say something wrong against Shivji and also Shivji is not pleased when He hears something wrong against Sri Ram.

 

So better we stop the discussion right now.

[Dark Warrior]

The thread starter is ignorant of etiquette, no doubt. He and I have our little differences (and confrontational mud-slinging). But that does not make Vaishnavism entirely wrong.

 

1) From the Vedas, it is to be gathered that Narayana is parabrahman. He existed alone, one without a second. No Rudra, No Brahma, etc.

 

2) It is mentioned clearly that Rudra is a Jivatma. Shathapatha Brahmana talks of how Rudra was born, how he asked Brahma to remove his past sins.

 

3) The name 'Rudra' was given to this jivatma by Brahma. Rudra means 'howler'. He was given this name because he cried when he was born.

 

4) Names like Shiva, Maheswara, Shambhu were given to Rudra by Brahma just to appease Rudra's ego. In reality, the name Shiva means 'auspicious'. Maheswara means 'Lord of the World'. Shambhu means 'Blissful'.

 

5) Therfore, such names like Shiva, etc. can also apply to Narayana. He alone is auspicious, blissful and the Lord of the World.

 

Now, the Vedas, are unified in one fact - Narayana is Brahman. But they also call Siva as Brahman, Indra as Brahman, Vayu as Brahman, Shambhu as Brahman, etc. However, it is clearly and coherently mentioned that Narayana is the highest and none other.

 

In other parts of the Vedas, these deities like Indra and Shiva are shown to be jivatmas. They have defects. So, they couldn't possibly be supreme.

 

Then how do we resolve contradictions? Simply take the common names. Siva is Brahman means 'Brahman is auspicious'. It does not pertain to Mahadeva. Shambhu is Brahman means 'Brahman is blissful'.

 

Indra has all the wealth (aiswarya) of Brahman. But he does not have other traits like intelligence, auspiciousness, etc. So, Narayana is Indra, Brahma, Siva means Narayana has aiswarya, intelligence and auspiciousness.

 

There is also another aspect. In the hymns praising devas, there is always a gentle reminder that the deity is praised only with Vishnu as the indweller.

 

Sri Rudram Chamakam, for instance, praises Rudra as supreme. But it also mentions in the Chamakam part that all prayers to Rudra go to the source of his power, the indwelling Lord Vishnu.

 

Saivites CANNOT get past the fact that Rudra has emphatically been declared to be a jivatma in Vedas. Therfore, they stick to Siva Purana. But Siva Purana is classified as Tamo guna. Hence, Saivites are defeated.

 

It is also shown in the Vedas that Brahma, Shiva, Indra are just posts. Any jivatma can attain this position by penance. Which means, if you or me do such a penance, we could become Rudra or Brahma in another Yuga by Sri Hari's grace. Once the current Brahma's life span ends, either he, along with the devas gets moksha (if Sri Hari is willing) or they will be subject to transmigration in Samsara again.

 

 

Sri Vaishnva can not stand Madhvacharya

 

Correction. I cannot stand Tackleberry's disrespect for acharyas of other sampradayas just because they differ philosophically. It is unvaishnavite. I have nothing but respect for Sri Madhvacharya.

 

It is foolish to say that only Vaishnavas fight. The same goes for Saivism. You have Veera Shaivism, Kashmir Shaivism, Kapalika and Kalamukha, each squabbling with one another. The Smarta sect of advaitins also have divisions, each claiming to be the original parampara of Sri Sankaracharya.

 

----

 

Coming to the topic of this thread,

 

Rudra is not worshippable as a devotee of Vishnu even. If that was the case, one may also worship Indra, because despite Indra being completely materialistic, he always seeks the lotus feet of Vishnu for even material gains (making him a Vaishnava).

 

Rudra is a Rama bhakta. But there are many instances when he has rebelled against Sri Krishna, and considered himself to be supreme. Of course, he has realised his mistake, but that only makes him a vaishnava. There is a difference between Bhagavata and Vaishnava in the sense that even materialists may worship Vishnu and be called Vaishnavas. But Bhagavatas are people like our acharyas who have never stepped beyond the line of devotion and selfless service. Rudra is not a bhagavata.

 

Srimad Bhagavatam calls Rudra the greatest Vaishnava. True, but this may not pertain to even this yuga's Rudra. It is a well known fact that Puranas often pertain to events occuring in different chatur yugas. That is why there are some discrepancies with chronology. Hence, the Rudra hailed as a Vaishnava in Bhagavatam could have been a Rudra of a previous yuga as well.

 

I respect Rudra and other devas, but I won't worship them. Only Lakshmi Narayana and the acharyas are worshippable.

[kimfelix]

Dark Warrior, you make strong assertions there about what is said in the Vedas but without proper references these don't carry too much weight. In the Mahabharata there are clear statements that show Shiva as the supreme deity. And of course I must find references to specific passages: you might look at the final two chapters of the Drona Parvan in which Krishna is referred to as a devotee of Shiva and generated by Shiva: sa esha rudra-bhaktas cha keshavo rudra-sambhavah. In the Sauptika Parvan Shiva manifests thousands of Vishnu forms from out of his body and again in chapters 14 to 17 of the Anushasana Parvan it is made clear that Shiva is the Supreme Deity.

 

My point is not to refute Vaishnavism but to try to show that there is not a simple or easy conclusion to be drawn from sacred texts. There is plenty of evidence from both Shruti and Smriti to support a Shaiva theology just as there is to support the view that Vishnu is the Supreme Deity.

[LoveroftheBhagavata]

Dark Warrior is certainly to be respected for his markedly more mature disposition than tackleberry (with a small t), however, he also displays his characteristic Vaishnava sectarianism by trying to shove the Sri interpretation down our throats, when everyone even remotely acquainted with the Vedantic tradition knows full well that the personalistic conception of Vishnu as supreme can only be upholded by ignoring vast portions of Veda, and only emphasising a few, lesser sources of pramana. The fact is, Vaishnavas can claim prominence over other schools and propagate their biased and often comical views as much as they want, neither Ramanuja nor Madhva come anywhere near Sri Sankara as far as mastery over Vedanta is concerned. It is only their own followers who buy into their myths wholesale. As for non-Vaishnavas disagreeing with one another, difference of opinion is more often than not a healthy thing. However, some Vaishnavas display a pettiness, cheapness and ignorance that one would be hard-pressed to find in any other sect, whether Shaiva, Advaita, Shakta, Buddhist etc.

 

For confirmation of this, anyone can simply take a quick trip to a part of cyberspace where a Shaiva, Tantrik Yoga or Advaitic forum is hosted, and the contrast between the civility and tranquilness there and what we have here shall be obvious to one and all. With this, I'm outta here.

[Kulapavana]

Lord Shiva is most certainly NOT a demigod. No one can become Shiva. He is primeval, eternal, and part of Lord Vishnu. The offenders who consider Him a mere demigod like Indra or Candra are completely ignorant of the shastra.

[kimfelix]

Lover of the Bhagavata, I am not a Vaishnava but I think you are wrong to refer to Ramanuja's and Madhva's interpretations of sacred text as laughable. To assert that Shankara's commentary is superior without identifiable criteria of superiority has no meaning. You cannot construct a debate on that basis. My impression has been that Shankara is stronger on the Upanishads but not on the Gita where Ramanuja seems closer to the spirit of the text. But that is also just an opinion.

 

And if you will accept a little advice: I think you should try to modify the way in which you address those you disagree with. You don't persuade people by rudeness and persons like myself who are more or less neutral get an unfavourable impression of your own path. If adhering to Advaita makes people rude, intolerant and aggressive then questions arise about its spiritual content. I don't think I would like to be that way inclined.

[Amlesh]

It's not surprising at all, Lord krishna already spoke about it in the Gita... very rarely can one know about Him in Truth.

[LoveroftheBhagavata]

 

Lord Shiva is most certainly NOT a demigod. No one can become Shiva. He is primeval, eternal, and part of Lord Vishnu. The offenders who consider Him a mere demigod like Indra or Candra are completely ignorant of the shastra.

 

Haribol, Kulapavanaji. One of the reasons why I was in Gaudiya Vaishnavism for several years is because it had always appealed to me a lot more than the South Indian sampradayas, on account of its syncretist tendency. Sure, I am no longer a Chaitanyaite, but your religion has left an influence on my psyche which is truly indelible. I would imagine that to any thoughtful individual, as one draws nearer to God, a sense of harmony and universalism should develop at the expense of our lower natures more prone to discord than unity. One sees the exact opposite in some personalistic traditions, and hence, I shall always assert that of all the devotional cults, GV prevails as the mighty, undisputed monarch. Its far broader geographical and intercultural presence than either Vishishtadvaita or Dvaita amply attests to this. The nonsense which we get to witness on this forum is largely the product of a defective comprehension of Gaudiya theology. To me, you along with JN Prabhu epitomise about the very best of Krishna consciousness that is visible on Audarya, and if only more Vaishnavas could manifest similar symptoms, it is the movement of Shri Chaitanya as a whole that would be immensely benefited.

[Dark Warrior]

 

he also displays his characteristic Vaishnava sectarianism by trying to shove the Sri interpretation down our throats, when everyone even remotely acquainted with the Vedantic tradition knows full well that the personalistic conception of Vishnu as supreme can only be upholded by ignoring vast portions of Veda, and only emphasising a few, lesser sources of pramana.

 

Please show me ONE portion of Vedas that does not tally with Vaishnava views.

 

With due respect, the supremacy of Vishnu is established only by considering all pramanas, and not a few. I assure you, I have no desire to hurt the feelings of shaivas or shaktas. But I know the truth.

 

 

The fact is, Vaishnavas can claim prominence over other schools and propagate their biased and often comical views as much as they want, neither Ramanuja nor Madhva come anywhere near Sri Sankara as far as mastery over Vedanta is concerned. It is only their own followers who buy into their myths wholesale. As for non-Vaishnavas disagreeing with one another, difference of opinion is more often than not a healthy thing. However, some Vaishnavas display a pettiness, cheapness and ignorance that one would be hard-pressed to find in any other sect, whether Shaiva, Advaita, Shakta, Buddhist etc.

 

Did you know that Acharya Sankara himself was a Vaishnavite? He advocated worship, or rather Vishnu only, as the supreme self. Vaishnavism is not only personal. Impersonal realisation of Vishnu is also Vaishnavism.

 

Around the 16th century, some shaivas have manufactured works like Saundarya Lahiri and passed it off as Sri Sankara's works. This has been proven by non-vaishnava scholars who are unbiased in their approach.

 

All the core works of Sri Sankaracharya - the Prasthna Trayam, advocate Vasudeva as the highest Brahman.

 

 

For confirmation of this, anyone can simply take a quick trip to a part of cyberspace where a Shaiva, Tantrik Yoga or Advaitic forum is hosted, and the contrast between the civility and tranquilness there and what we have here shall be obvious to one and all. With this, I'm outta here.

 

Considering that in many Shaiva temples, Lord Vishnu and his devotees are portrayed as completely weak and immature, I'd say arrogance and haughtiness exists on both sides of the fence. The difference is, we have pramanas to back it up.

[LoveroftheBhagavata]

 

Lover of the Bhagavata, I am not a Vaishnava but I think you are wrong to refer to Ramanuja's and Madhva's interpretations of sacred text as laughable. To assert that Shankara's commentary is superior without identifiable criteria of superiority has no meaning. You cannot construct a debate on that basis. My impression has been that Shankara is stronger on the Upanishads but not on the Gita where Ramanuja seems closer to the spirit of the text. But that is also just an opinion.

 

And if you will accept a little advice: I think you should try to modify the way in which you address those you disagree with. You don't persuade people by rudeness and persons like myself who are more or less neutral get an unfavourable impression of your own path. If adhering to Advaita makes people rude, intolerant and aggressive then questions arise about its spiritual content. I don't think I would like to be that way inclined.

 

It is not the take that these acharyas adopt on shastra per se that I was focusing on, but the debate winning and defeating plus the conversion mythologies that have been built around Vaishnavism, and which are nigh impossible to substantiate with historical evidence. Modern day Vaishnavas cannot help boasting about how many Advaitins they supposedly converted back then, when Sankarites whom I know could not care less about such issues. As far as I am concerned, even if I were alone in the universe in my belief system, that would be just fine. Nobody is capable of more venom towards other faiths than those who believe in personal deities, for these people sweep the unity of everything in creation under the carpet, and stress distinction, in all of the Vaishnava variants that we know. Such approaches seldom lead their adherents to ultimate harmony.

[LoveroftheBhagavata]

 

Did you know that Acharya Sankara himself was a Vaishnavite? He advocated worship, or rather Vishnu only, as the supreme self. Vaishnavism is not only personal. Impersonal realisation of Vishnu is also Vaishnavism.

 

Around the 16th century, some shaivas have manufactured works like Saundarya Lahiri and passed it off as Sri Sankara's works. This has been proven by non-vaishnava scholars who are unbiased in their approach.

 

All the core works of Sri Sankaracharya - the Prasthna Trayam, advocate Vasudeva as the highest Brahman.

 

 

Standard Vaishnavite propaganda. Sorry if I don't swallow it, nor do any Shankarites worth that appellation. Have the last word if you wish to, I'm just tired of getting into the same arguments time and again. Be happy in your Vishnu worship and forgive me if I say that I'd rather turn into a beef-eating atheist than return to such narrow, personal god ideologies. Farewell.

[Pretender]

In the early 80's, I began to regularly recite the Rudra-gita from the Fourth Canto of Srimad-Bhagavatam. By the late 80's I began to pray to Shiva in my own words composing a short prayer as follows:

"O Rudra, Shiva, Shambu, Ashutosh ---- topmost of all the demigods and Vaishnavas; please be merciful upon us, forgiving our many offenses against you, kindly protect our humble abode from all unwanted or inauspicious intrusions of every description ---- while simultaneously protecting us from all those who wish us ill, whoever they and wherever we may be. But more importantly, please be merciful upon us and bless us that we will develop an ever-deeper internal understanding of the individual soul's eternal relationship with the Supreme Soul, Lord Vishnu, while simultaneously sharing our genuine insight in an unpretentious manner with all those souls who happen to surround us. This is all possible by Your Grace."

In the early 90's, I came upon Srila Prabhupada's Beautiful commentary to Sri Caitanya-caritamrta, Chapter 7, Text 157 wherein he clearly states that "...Vaishnavas can also worship all these demigods (Brahma, Shiva, Durga, Ganesh and Surya), but only on the principles of Brahma-samhita, which is recommended by Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu. We may note in this connection the mantras for worshiping Lord Shiva, Lord Brahma, goddess Durga, the sun-god and Ganesha, as described in the Brahma-samhita:

 

srsti-sthiti-pralaya-sadhana-saktir eka

chayeva yasya bhuvanani bibharti durga

icchanurupam api yasya ca cestate sa

govindam adi-purusam tam aham bhajami

 

"The external potency, maya, who is the nature of the shadow of the cit potency, is worshiped by all people as Durga, the creating, preserving and destroying agency of this mundane world. I adore the primeval Lord Govinda, in accordance with whose will Durga conducts herself." (Bs 5.44)

 

ksiram yatha dadhi vikara-visesa-yogat

sanjayate na hi tatah prthag asti hetoh

yah sambhutam api tatha samupaiti karyad

govindam adi-purusam tam aham bhajami

 

"Milk is transformed into curd by the actions of acids, yet the effect 'curd' is neither the same nor different from its cause, viz., milk. I adore the primeval Lord Govinda, of whom the state of Shambu is a similar transformation for the performance of the work of destruction." (Bs. 5.45)

 

yat-pada-pallava-yugam vinidhaya kumbha-

dvandve pranama-samaye sa ganadhirajah

vighnan vihantum alam asya jagat-trayasya

govindam adi-purusam tam aham bhajami

 

"I worship the primeval Lord Govinda. Ganesha always holds His Lotus Feet upon the pair of tumuli protruding from his elephant head in order to obtain power for his function of destroying all obstacles on the path of progress in the three worlds." (Bs. 5.50)

 

I already had a great fondness for Lord Shiva after reciting his words from Srimad-Bhagavatam (Fourth Canto, Chapter 24, Verses 33-79) about chanting the Holy Name and also praying to him with my own words for many years. When I read these words of Srila Prabhupada along with the accompanying slokas from Sri Brahma-samhita, I felt compelled to learn them (which I did).

 

Not long after this, I was offered the opportunity to become the West Coast distributor of a successful and popular commercially packaged holy water from one of India's holiest rivers. Yet somehow, in spite of an obvious chance to increase my own lucrativity with this offer, my peace of conscience could not quite agree. I began to ponder that much the same as how the Lord's holy prasad cannot be "sold" (or "bought") without any and all proceeds going to the Lord Himself, similarly, how inappropriate it was for jivas to seek to profit off of the holy water of the sacred river which Lord Shambu helped bring to earth for the benefit of all souls(most of whom are too poor to have to "pay" for it). Because of these considerations, I had decided that I could not accept the position as a commercial holy water distributor. That night Lord Shiva came to me a dream. He wasn't very much like the rudrafied Vishnu depictions of Lord Shiva (of most popular artistic renditions). He was much more terrible to behold, with matted reddish-hued hair and a nearly coarse, ruddy (Rudrayi) countenance, not like Vishnu at all. But its the eyes that I remember most. Reddish, and fiery, blazing with an anger capable of incinerating all existence in a blink. And also powerfully magnetic, like some great irresistible vortex. Swell. Now this angry vision of universal destruction was unhappily focused on yours truly. Why? Because I had even briefly considered involvement in a commercial enterprise to distribute the holy water that falls upon his head. For the benefit of all souls. Regardless of apparent inability to "pay."

 

I continued to chant the slokas from Sri Brahma-samhita and also pray to Lord Shiva. It occurred to me how much Lord Shiva must like to get Vishnu-prasada (and how because of popular misunderstanding probably doesn't get it as often as he would like to). I began to give the puspanjali-prasada from Sri Sri Guru-Gauranga to Lord Shiva, Goddess Durga and Lord Ganesha. I have continued to do so for many years.

 

A year later, my youngest daughter (she was around 2 at the time) had what she calls the "green" dream which happened over two consecutive nights and greatly terrified her. The first night a cobra's head was creeping over the her second story bedroom windowsill (in Concord, CA). The following night the cobra actually crawled over the windowsill and into her room while simultaneously the head of a greenish, bluish-hued fierce person rose into view in her second story window pane. She woke us with her screams. She's still not quite sure if it was just a dream.

 

A couple of years ago, I dreamt that a gigantic cobra was blocking me from driving out the dirt road from my house in the woods north of La Crosse (FL). In the woods to the left of the road, towering through the treetops a huge (30 feet tall sitting down) Shiva was seated in meditation by the creek.

 

In the summer of 2006, I dreamt that Lord Shiva came bursting out of the roof of my house into the yard. At first, as he exploded out of the roof, he was ashen-colored, grayish-blue, but when he landed on the ground he changed to a more normal darkish complexioned Indian aboriginal/yogi form, with long matted hair. This time he had a mischievous gleam in his reddish eyes and a barely restrained smirk on his lips, like he had just played a great prank by jumping out of my roof as if to say, "BOO!" But I felt wonderment instead of fear and this also seemed to please him as I said his name in amazed disbelief, "Shiva? SHIVA?" He continued to smile.

From the scriptures we can know that Lord Shiva is the Lord of all devastation (and my own life has plenty of that).

 

Have we considered how devastation is another of those modern words with its roots in Sanskrit (and Latin)? "Deva" meaning well, you know; and "station" being a variation of "status" or position. In other words, when the positions of the devas (who are devotees of the Supreme Lord Govinda) are not given proper regard, cataclysmic occurrences referred to as devastation can become more likely. And "natural" disasters aren't disastrous for Nature. Of course, unique and extenuating circumstances can also cause personal devastation. And I must think that such merciful expressions of the Divine Will are my real inner necessity, perfectly engineered for my benefit. With the help of my "friend", Shiva. When devastation occurs, I can know that Lord Shiva is near. And such consideration in the midst of the great pressure of severe personal circumstances brings great comfort. Or, to use the vernacular of Srila Saraswati Thakur, that every wave is favorable and that whatever God (and his servants the devas) does is for my good.

[Dark Warrior]

 

Standard Vaishnavite propaganda. Sorry if I don't swallow it, nor do any Shankarites worth that appellation. Have the last word if you wish to, I'm just tired of getting into the same arguments time and again. Be happy in your Vishnu worship and forgive me if I say that I'd rather turn into a beef-eating atheist than return to such narrow, personal god ideologies. Farewell.

 

I have already told you that the fact about Sri Sankaracharya and his immediate disciples such as Suresvara being Vaishnavas was revealed by non-sectarian people. The researchers were not vaishnavas; actually, they were not even hindus.

 

In fact, although temple worship is not a must for advaitins, Sri Sankara repeatedly emphasises the glory of archa forms of Vishnu. Sri Sankaracharya writes several times in his Brahma Sutra Bhashya, "yathA sAlagrAme hariH", "sAlagrama iva vishNoH", "yathA sAlagrAme vishNuH sannihitaH, tadvat...

 

In all his bhashyas on Gita, Upanishads and Brahma Sutras, he has only equated Vishnu with Saguna Brahman. In the Gita commentary, he openly denounces worship of all devas, including Shiva. The rituals prescribed by Sankaracharya for his followers also only consist of obeisances to Vishnu and not to Shiva.

 

And I hope noone is hurt by my claims of Shiva being a jivatma. In the Shathapatha Brahmana, Rudra cries and asks Brahma to cleanse him of his sins. Only Jivas can be sinful, therfore, Rudra is a Jiva.

[LoveroftheBhagavata]

In that case, you have concocted a meaning of the Sariraka Bhasya that nobody else in the world has been able to decipher. Talk about self-serving myths. Sankara himself wore the tripundra, not the urdhva that your co-religionists adorn themselves with. Ask anyone at the Kamakoti Peetha what they make of your stance. Which is why I shall always maintain that SOME Vaishnavas can be called the babies amongst spiritualists, and that is also why they make me laugh so heartily.

[Dark Warrior]

 

In that case, you have concocted a meaning of the Sariraka Bhasya that nobody else in the world has been able to decipher. Talk about self-serving myths. Sankara himself wore the tripundra, not the urdhva that your co-religionists adorn themselves with. Ask anyone at the Kamakoti Peetha what they make of your stance. Which is why I shall always maintain that Vaishnavas are the babies of spiritualists, and that is also why they make me laugh so heartily.

 

That is also refuted. I have told you, mordern saivites have distorted Sri Sankaracharya's Vaishnava status. So, they depict him in pictures as wearing the holy ash of Shiva. Actually, the proof suggests he wore a tilak.

 

The Kanchi mutt is also heavily shrouded in controversy. It is believed that Sri Sankara did not establish that mutt. The 4 mutts established by him are - Dwaraka, Puri, Badri and Shringeri. These mutts do not recognise the authenticity of Kanchi Mutt either.

 

Notice, the 4 other mutts are near Vaishnavite shrines.

 

EDIT: I have shown proof of Vaishnavism in Vedas. Here is pramana from smriti:

 

Varaha Purana: Narayana is the supreme deity. From Him was born the 4-faced Brahma and from Brahma arose Rudra.

Mahabharata: when the Jivatma and matter have gone into dissolution, i.e., during the deluge (pralaya), there is only one remaining and He is Lord Narayana.

Mahabharata: There is no being in the world that is eternal or permanent, except Vasudeva.

Harivamsa: Siva's words to Narayana; "Brahma is called Ka and I am called Isa. We two were born from your limbs. Therefore, you are called Kesava."

5) Mahabharata: Brahma's words to Siva: "I was born by His grace and you from His anger, in one of the earlier creations."

Mahabharata: Brahma, Rudra and Indra together with all other devas and rishis, worshipped the divine Narayana, the greatest of Gods.

Ramayana: Rudra sacrificed all things in a great yaga called Sarvamedha and then sacrificed himself also mentally.

Ramayana: They knew Vishnu is greater .(than Siva).

Mahabharata: These two, Brahma and Rudra, who are the greatest among the devas, are born out of the Lord's grace and anger. They perform the duties of creation and destruction, as ordered by Him.

Mahabharata: The devas are under the protection of Rudra. Rudra is under the protection of Brahma. Brahma is under my protection. I do not need the protection of anyone, I am the refuge of all.

Vishnupurana: Brahma, Daksha, Rudra, all these are among the attributes of Bhagavan. 12) Mahabharata: The words of Brahma to Rudra:

"He (Narayana) is the inner soul of you, of me and all beings. He sees everything, but cannot be seen by anyone or anywhere."

Rudra says in Mantra Raja Pada stotra: All beings are the servants of Paramatma. Therefore, I am also your servant and with this knowledge, I bow to you.

Mahabharata: There is no one superior to Narayana, the God of the lotus eyes. There is no God superior to Vishnu.

Naradapurana: There is no divine being, higher than Kesava.

Mahabharata: He (Vishnu) is the king of all kings. He is the Iswara, He is the father. He is the creator,

Mahabharata: Those intelligent people do not worship Brahma or Rudra or any other devas, because the fruit of their worship is limited.

Mahabharata: Lord Narayana told the devas:

"This Brahma is your father and mother and grandfather. He will give you boons under instructions from me. Rudra, his younger brother, had his origin from my forehead. Rudra will grant boons to beings under instructions from Brahma."

Bhagavad Gita: Krishna says: "Those who do sacrifices to other deities, they also do sacrifice only to Me; but not in the proper manner and according to rules."

Ramayana: Brahma, the three-eyed Rudra - cannot save a person from being killed in war, by Rama.

Mahabharata: Meditating always of the Lord, Brahma, Rudra and others have not yet realised the Lord's nature.

Mahabharata: Mahadeva (Rudra) sacrificed -himself in Sarvamedha yaga and became Devadeva.

Mahabharata: He, whom Madhusudana sees at the time of birth, becomes Sattvika - If Brahma or Rudra sees him at the time of birth, he is rilled with Rajoguna and Tamoguna (respectively).

Mahabharata: Narayana is Parabrahma. Narayana is Paratattva. He is greater than the greatest. There is none greater than Him.

Mahabharata: Siva said: I was bora from His (Narayana's) head - He is the one, fit to be worshipped always - By seeing Him, all other devas can also be deemed to be seen. I (Siva) also worship Him (Narayana) always - All of us, devas, reside in His body.

Vyasa: This is the Truth, Truth and Truth. There is no greater deity than Kesava.

Harivamsa: Siva said:- Only Hari is to be meditated upon, always. He is to be worshipped always. I (Siva) help in the worship of Hari.

Vishnu Purana: The world is born out of Vishnu and rests in Him. He is the world - He resides in all; and all beings reside in Him. Hence He is called Vasudeva. He is the Parabrahma.

Varaha Purana: Lord Narayana was at the beginning. From Him was born Brahma.

Bhagavata: Brahma said:- I, Brahma, create the world, commanded by Narayana. Siva, controlled by Narayana, destroys the world.

Bhagavata: The water from (washing) the feet of Vamana, which was borne on the head, with supreme devotion, by Kailasa vasa, Chandra mouli (Siva)....

Bhagavata: Brahma to Vishnu: We - Rudra and others - drink with our 11 senses, the honey in your lotus-like feet. 33) Bhagavata: Rudra to Krishna: You are the highest jyotis. The sky is your navel, agni is your mouth - You are the first purusha. You have no equal or superior. Myself (Rudra), the devas and rishis - all seek refuge in you. You are everything to us. You are our atma and ruler. You have no equal or superior; there is nobody else to be approached for protection. I come to you so that my samsara may be ended. 34) Bhagavata: Rudra to Parvati:- You asked me, when I rose from my yoga on whom I meditated. That person is Bhagavan (Narayana), whose maya, you have just witnessed. He is eternal.

Bhagavata: Rudra:- One, ... who loves Bhagavan Vasudeva, goes after a hundred births to the world of Brahma; then he comes to my world. He will then reach the eternal world of Vishnu, as myself, Indra and other devas will do, at the expiration of our authority.

Bhagavata: Markandeya to Rudra: I will ask for this boon:- "May my love for Bhagavan (Narayana), for those that regard Him as the highest goal, and for you, remain unshaken." Rudra: "You will be a lover of Bhagavan (Narayana)."

Parvati asks Siva: "I want to hear from you this: How do the learned people recite the 1000 names of Vishnu easily? Siva replies: "It is enough, if you say Rama. This is equivalent to all 1000 names of Vishnu. I also enjoy saying the name of Rama." I have quoted above, only very few passages. There are innumerable such passages in smrtis, puranas and itihasas stating that Narayana is the supreme deity.

[Kulapavana]

 

The nonsense which we get to witness on this forum is largely the product of a defective comprehension of Gaudiya theology.

 

Amen to that... Lord Caitanya even embraced the best parts of the Advaita tradition (by siding with Sridhara Swami commentary for example, and taking sannyasa from Advaitins), insisting on unsentimental and completely shastric presentation of the philosophy. The devotional sentiments were reserved only for the innermost circle of his followers. Alas, many of His followers simply become sentimentalists, dominated by "holier that thou" attitude.

[LoveroftheBhagavata]

Please Dark Warrior,

 

Your "pramana" is so extremely selectively picked out that I'm just speechless, considering that ten times more matter could be presented supporting that far more rational and plausible mythos that Parabrahman is literally nirguna and nirakara, with all major Deities representing various features of HIM-ABOUT-WHOM-NAUGHT-MAY-BE-SAID. However, I'm violently not into these cutting and pasting antics, for they seem just far too tacky for me. I respect your commitment to your line, but I just loathe the notion of shutting myself in one specific sect and by implication essentially dismiss all other metaphysics as secondary or inferior. I have myself spent well over a decennary in Bengali Vaishnavism, and thus I was for many long spans perfectly in tune with the Vaishnavite stories on much of what you've stated on this thread, with "stories" being the operative term. To my mind, the greatest transcendentalists of recent times were stalwart Advaitins who were truly cosmic, one could say, in realisation, and who were diametrically opposed to the narrow-mindedness of certain sectarians. Great saints of the calibre of Swami Sivanandaji Maharaja and his main disciples Krishnananda and Chidananda, Sri Ramana Maharshi, Swami Omkarananda, and Chidananda Saraswatiji Maharaja spring to mind immediately. And the most wonderful thing is, the holistic methodologies favoured by these swamis by means of a most practical combination of bhakti, jnana, yoga, and karma to aid one in attaining Truth is in sharp contradiction with the sole reliance on devotional feeling of the traditional Vaishnava schools of thought. Therefore, may Lord Vishnu always bless and protect you, but please excuse if Hari-bhakti is only one of any number of equally valid methods as far as I am concerned.

 

Hari Om Tat Sat

Aum Namah Shivaya

yA devI sarva bhuteshu shakti rUpeNa samsthitA namastasyai namastasyai namastasyai namo namaH

[indulekhadasi]

Definitely not!

Lord Shiva is NOT a demigod. The Brhad Bhagavatamrita explains that to do so would be the greatest offense. No one can ever attain the position of Lord Shiva, although they can attain the position of Lord Brahma.

Kulapavana prabhu's answer is wonderful.