Is Lord Shiva a demi-god?

Dark Warrior · May 16, 2008

Vishnu is Yajna. He is the sacrifice. Hence, when devas perform Yajna, it means that Vishnu is the sacrifice, He is the acceptor of the sacrifice and the giver of the merits of sacrifice as well.

This verse is explained by Vaishnavas in the sense that everything arose as a result of sacrifice performed by Devas for Vishnu.

How to prove this? The Shathapatha Brahmana gives the full story, of what happened when Vishnu's head was cut off.

Vishnu's head gets tossed into the sky and becomes the sun. His headless torso falls in the eastern direction with the sound "ghrIN". Hence the name "gharma" (gharma = theratti paal, used in pravargya rite). { Taittriya Aranyaka's variation is that the head goes upto the heaven and falls down with the "ghrIN" sound and hence the name gharma }.

Vital essence starts oozing out of Vishnu's body. Indra reached first and smeared the vital sap on his body and hence he became "makhavAn". The devas divided Vishnu's body into three parts corresponding to three soma pressings in a sacrifice (Remember - Vishnu = Yagnya). Few more verses on what deva gets each soma pressing.

Hence, this shows how the devas obtained different merits from different portions of the sacrifice. Head becomes sun. Sap from Vishnu's body gives Indra strength.

Thus, the Shathapatha Brahmana glorifies Vishnu as Yajneswara, the Lord of Sacrifice. This is not the 'death' of Vishnu.

Remember, the Purusha Sukta also says how the Purusha was tied to a stake and sacrificed. it is not to be taken in the literal sense of 'killing' the Purusha. It indicates that Purusha, who is Brahman (Vishnu) is the act of sacrifice and the giver of sacrificial benefits.

kimfelix · May 16, 2008

Dark Warrior, just a word of explanation. Firstly, there is no 'Madhvacharya' Mahabharata text. It just doesn't exist so I can hardly refer to it. The BORI (Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute) Critical Edition consists of a collection of existing Sanskrit manuscript of the Mahabharata. These have been set against each other by a team of scholars and the attempt made to provide a definitive edition of the Sanskrit text, which corresponds most closely to the majority of manuscripts. They have not invented anything and if you study the BORI edition you have access to every existing manuscript and the major and minor differences between them.

So if you reject the BORI edition of the Mahabharata, there isn't anything else!

Prior to the publication of the Critical Edition, the most widely used version of the Sanskrit text was the Vulgate employed by Nilakantha, the main commentator on the Mahabharata. Ganguli is the only scholar to provided a complete English translation, but this was based on Nilakanth's manuscript not the Critical Edition as his work predates its publication.

Given this information, I can't see why you find references to these texts so infuriating. There really isn't another version to use! If you want to impose a criterion that only verses cited to by pre-modern acharyas are authentic, then you will be left with less 1% of the text, which seems a little ridiculous.

Dark Warrior · May 16, 2008

Dark Warrior, just a word of explanation. Firstly, there is no 'Madhvacharya' Mahabharata text. It just doesn't exist so I can hardly refer to it. The BORI (Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute) Critical Edition consists of a collection of existing Sanskrit manuscript of the Mahabharata. These have been set against each other by a team of scholars and the attempt made to provide a definitive edition of the Sanskrit text, which corresponds most closely to the majority of manuscripts. They have not invented anything and if you study the BORI edition you have access to every existing manuscript and the major and minor differences between them.

Madhvacharya's "Mahabharata Tatparya Nirnaya" is a commentary on the important events of Mahabharata.

In this commentary, he proves Vishnu's supremacy. Use your bloody brains and read Vaishnava literature.

So if you reject the BORI edition of the Mahabharata, there isn't anything else!

This edition is merely a compilation of every verse that has ever been found. It does not refer to Sruti, hence, it does not determine which is an interpolation and which isn't.

Prior to the publication of the Critical Edition, the most widely used version of the Sanskrit text was the Vulgate employed by Nilakantha, the main commentator on the Mahabharata. Ganguli is the only scholar to provided a complete English translation, but this was based on Nilakanth's manuscript not the Critical Edition as his work predates its publication.

Even C. Rajagopalachari's version of the Mahabharata was refuted as partly incorrect by Sri Krishnamachari. And Rajagopalachari is a Vaishnava!!

So, understand how inaccurate BORI is. So is Ganguli, Nilakantha and all those other incompetent goofs. Whenever they see one line saying, 'Narayana is Brahma, He is Shiva', they immediately pounce on it and call all gods as equal!! No regard for shruti whatsoever.

Given this information, I can't see why you find references to these texts so infuriating. There really isn't another version to use! If you want to impose a criterion that only verses cited to by pre-modern acharyas are authentic, then you will be left with less 1% of the text, which seems a little ridiculous.

It isn't up to you to judge what is and what isn't authentic. What is present in Shruti and Smriti is authentic.

That is why, refer scholars like Krishnamachari before consulting Smriti. And gain a knowledge of Vedanta before you bring up useless arguments.

EDIT: Madhva also points out that many versions were extant during his time itself (13th century). So, understand how many spurious versions must be existing now.

kimfelix · May 16, 2008

Have you read Ganguli's translation or Nilakantha's commentary?

Madhvacharya makes a commentary on certain selected passages of the Mahabharata, but he is not presenting a definitive of the text. What do suggest, that we simply ignore every part of the Mahabharata that Madhvacharya doesnn't mention? That doesn't seem reasonable.

Ganeshprasad · May 16, 2008

Pranam all

Valmiki Ramayan says that it was Brahma, who took the form of a boar and raised the Earth out of water. Context: -Sage Jabali tells says that rituals are of no use. Rama gets angry. Then Vashistha tells Rama that Jabali is saying this only because he wants Rama to come back to Ayodhya. After that Vashistha says some other things - one of which is that Brahma lifted Earth out of water.

Bhagavatam clearly says that Vishnu took the form of boar. So, one contradicts the other.

Satapatha Brahmana (14.2.1.11) says that Prajapati took the form of boar.

To which our great preceptor answers as quote

1) Puranas say that Brahma meditated on Narayana, and Varaha came out of Brahma's nostril to defeat the asura. Hence, it is taken to mean that Narayana, the indweller literally became Varaha.

In Mahabharat it is written that Krsna prayed to Shiva and as a result got Samb as son.

It is also written in Mahabharat that Bhisma tells Yudhisthira that Krsna got powers from Shiva.

to that he states

Easily explained.

1) Varaha Purana explains that Shiva had asked the Supreme Lord Krishna for a boon, that Krishna would worship Shiva for something. Krishna fulfills it.

The standard is Shruti > Ithihasas > Puranas. Hence, Puranas must be compared to Valmiki and not vice versa.

Note he wants to explain srutis and Ithihas by using Purana if any one else does it he is dimwit, moron and god knows what other abusive language he has used.

He can explain Satapatha Brahmana ,but no body else can, we have listen to his outrageous claim that Shiva is born with sins, when there is no such thing.

Satapatha Brahmana

Brahma creates the material bodies. The atma cannot come from Brahma's mind. By tapas, he attains Isana as his son. When Brahma does tapas, Narayana forces an atma into the body of Isana-Rudra, created by Brahma.

What a glorious explanation! But let us see what Satapatha Brahmana is saying

6:1:2:66. By his Mind (manas) he entered into union with Speech (vâk): he became pregnant with eight drops. They were created as those eight Vasus 1: he placed them on this (earth).

6:1:2:77. By his Mind he entered into union with Speech: he became pregnant with eleven drops. They were created as those eleven Rudras 2: he placed them in the air.

6:1:2:88. By his Mind he entered into union with Speech: he became pregnant with twelve drops. They were created as the twelve Âdityas 3: he placed them in the sky.

p. 150

6:1:2:99. By his Mind he entered into union with Speech: he became pregnant. He created the All-gods: he placed them in the quarters.

6:1:2:1010. And so they say, 'After Agni having been created, the Vasus were created: he placed them on this (earth);--after Vâyu, the Rudras: (he placed) them in the air;--after the sun, the Âdityas: (he placed) them in the sky;--after the moon, the All-gods 1: he placed them in the quarters.'

Note all gods created through his mind. No mention here of Narayana forces an atma, we are really ask to stretch our imagination

Later a kumar is born and he cries like all baby would, to give name is to ward off evil, that what we learn if we read without any bias not that the boy is born with sin as some would have us believe and the verse is absolutely clear as to who this boy is.

6:1:3:1919. And because there are eight forms of Agni--

p. 161

the Gâyatrî consisting of eight syllables--therefore they say, 'Agni is Gâyatra.' That boy entered into the forms one after another; for one never sees him as a mere boy (kumâra), but one sees those forms of his 1, for he assumed those forms one after another.

6:1:3:2020. One ought to build him (Agni, the fire-altar) up in (the space of) a year, and recite for a year. 'For two (years),' however, say some; 'for in one year they laid the seed, and in one year that boy was born, therefore let him build for two (years), and recite for two (years).' Let him, however, build for a year only, and recite for a year; for the same seed which is laid is brought forth; it then lies changing and growing: hence let him build for a year only, and recite for a year. To him (Agni) when built up (kita) he gives a name: whereby he keeps away evil from him. He calls him by a bright (kitra) name 2, saying, 'Thou art bright;' for Agni is all bright things.

It is clear as day light the names are given to ward of evil and all those name denotes the eight form of Agni and Agni is such like the names given.

First you say that Satapatha Brahmana mentions birth of Prajapati. Then you say that Prajapati is Vishnu here. If we combine these two statements, then we find that Satapatha Brahmana mentions birth of Vishnu.

Satapatha Chapter on Pravargya or the birth of kumar will always be bone of contention.

To some brahma is deluded or Vyasdev does not know srutis but he gave those so called tamsic puranas any way.

We may refer this matter to an expert (but again I fear that experts are themselves of many kinds, driven by their predilections.) The point is very clearly explained in Brihadaraynaka: "What did Brahman know that it became all?" Resolution of such debates is never possible. Ending of questions is never possible -- new doubts will be ever cropping up. Those with hierarchy problem will never be able to resolve so call contradiction.(because egos will always persists).

Jai Shree Krishna

Dark Warrior · May 17, 2008

Have you read Ganguli's translation or Nilakantha's commentary?

First of all, none of them adhere to Shruti. So there is no point accepting them.

Sri Puttur Krishnamachari Swami knows which the real version is. He is over 80 now, and has been very actively involved in promoting such things, writing many books on the subject. That is why I told you, stop placing yourself as authority over Shruti and consult the correct sources.

You have been answered by me, Raghu and some others, yet all you can do is keep harping about 'Rudra and Narayana are One'.

Madhvacharya makes a commentary on certain selected passages of the Mahabharata, but he is not presenting a definitive of the text. What do suggest, that we simply ignore every part of the Mahabharata that Madhvacharya doesnn't mention? That doesn't seem reasonable.

According to you, an edition which is merely a compilation of every interpolation is a pramana? Remember, if anyone had objected to Sri Madhva's work, we would have known.

Bottom Line - Stop quoting Bori, Ganguli, Nilakantha, and Tamasic Puranas. Learn the basic rules of polemics in Vedanta.

Dark Warrior · May 17, 2008

Pranam al
Note he wants to explain srutis and Ithihas by using Purana if any one else does it he is dimwit, moron and god knows what other abusive language he has used.

Back again?

Read my sentence properly. I said, Valmiki should be used as standard for recognising authenticity of Puranas, and not vice versa.

Varaha Purana did not contradict Krishna's words, hence it is accepted. In any case, Santi Parva confirms that Krishna did NOT worship Shiva, but rather worshipped Himself. End of Story.

He can explain Satapatha Brahmana ,but no body else can, we have listen to his outrageous claim that Shiva is born with sins, when there is no such thing.

Only your belief. Excuse me, its there plainly for everyone to see.

Outrageous? Birth of Rudra is clearly given. When you do not even accept 'Pasupati' being mentioned there, what hope is there for you?

It is not outrageous to claim Shiva has sins. Shruti mentions that Isana-Mahadeva was born from the forehead of Narayana, and meditated on Vishnu to get his Rudra-Strength. It also says that this same Isana is absent during pralaya, and is a product of Brahma (meaning, Narayana)'s creation.

Again, you evade the question - Is not Mahadeva, Pasupati, Isana and Ugra the names of Shiva? Indeed, they are. Hence, this Kumara is none other than Shiva.

Note all gods created through his mind. No mention here of Narayana forces an atma, we are really ask to stretch our imagination
Later a kumar is born and he cries like all baby would, to give name is to ward off evil, that what we learn if we read without any bias not that the boy is born with sin as some would have us believe and the verse is absolutely clear as to who this boy is.

"anapahatapapma" is clearly mentioned in Satapatha Brahmana. It means, 'Not cleansed of sins'. The Kumara, who is Rudra, is shown to have papa, ie, sins. Your translator takes 'Papa' as evil, and says, 'not freed from evil'. A more appropriate word for 'papa' is 'sin'. In any case, Rudra is not freed from 'evil' or 'sin', whichever way you see it.

stuhi shrutaM gartasadaM yuvAnaM mRgaM na

bhImamupahatnumugram.h |

mRlA jaritre rudra stavAno.anyaM te asman ni vapantu

senAH ||

sage Gritsamada says: O Rudra (rudra) , you pray

(stuhi) to that (deity) who resides in the cave (of

heart) (gartasadaM), who is ever young (yuvAnaM), and

who took a fierce form to kill (the asura)

(upahatnumugram.h) and killed (the asura) by pouncing

(on Him) and who is conveyed by the entire Veda

(shrutaM: shrutyA dyotaM). ~ Rig Veda.

This verse proves that Rudra has an indweller. Curiously, this deity, who is hailed as the one who took a fierce form to kill an asura, appears to be none other than Narasimha!!

Any being who has an indweller is a Jiva. Mahabharata (Santi Parva) also confirms it.

How can a sentient being be created through the mind? Use common sense - Brahma was created by Narayana. Brahma is a jiva because he has a life-span (Krishna mentions it in Gita). So, any creation by a Jiva has got to be material.

How can a jiva put life into Rudra without an atma? It contradicts the basic purport of Vedanta that beings can be born from Brahma, the material creator, and exist without an atman.

Krishna says, 'Never was there a time when you or I, or any sentient being did not exist'. So, it means that Rudra, Agni, Vayu, etc. are all sentient beings (since they have life), and must have existed as well before they were created by Brahma.

Hence, it is inferred that Brahma creates bodies. Narayana forces the atman into them. You, of course, may say, 'Rudra, Agni, etc.' were born of Brahma's mind, and hence it makes them special, like an avatar or something. This is refuted by the fact that Brahma, Adityas, Vasus, Rudras, etc. are mentioned as distinct beings created by Narayana.

It follows that they are all Jivas.

Now,

- Shruti says Brahma created Rudra.

- Shruti also says Narayana created Rudra.

Hence it means, Rudra was created by Brahma, and the indweller injected an atma into the material body of Rudra.

Brahma only creates material body.

Yes, the boy was born with sin. To ward of this sin/evil, Brahma gave him names like Rudra, Isana, Pasupati, Mahadeva, etc. which are asupicious names. It makes perfect sense.

Your english translator, of course, literally interprets 'Agni'. And a guy named 'Eggbert' or whatever is not an expert on Vedanta.

atha puruSho ha vai naaraayaNo 'kaamayata prajaa sR^ijeyeti |

naaraayaNaat praaNo jaayate manaH sarvendriyaaNi cha kha.m vaayur jyotir aapaH pR^ithivii vishvasya dhaariNii |

naaraayaNaad brahmaa jaayate |

naaraayaNaad rudro jaayate |

naaraayaNaad indro jaayate |

naaraayaNat prajaapatiH prajaayate |

naaraayaNaad dvadashaadityaa rudraa vasavaH sarvaaNi chandaa.msi naaraayaNaad eva samutpadyante naaraayaNat pravartante naaraayaNe praliiyante |

etad R^ig-vedo-shiro 'dhiite || naaraayaNopaniShad 1 ||

Naaraayana is the Supreme Lord. He desired, "I shall create children." From Naaraayana the life breath, mind, all the senses, either, air, fire, water, and earth, which maintains the universe, were born. From Naaraayana Brahmaa was born. From Naaraayana Shiva was born. From Naaraayana Indra was born. From Naaraayana Prajaapati was born. From Naaraayana the twelve Adityas, the Rudras, the Vasus, and all the Vedic hymns were born. From Naaraayana they were manifested. Into Naaraayana they again enter. This is the crown of the R^ig Veda (nArAayaNopaniShad 1).

Here, it clearly says Narayana is the cause of everything. 'Into Narayana they enter' clearly shows that they, like all of us, are also subject to pralaya, and hence are jivas. No sense dodging it.

It is clear as day light the names are given to ward of evil and all those name denotes the eight form of Agni and Agni is such like the names given.

Also, it says, when he was named Sarva, waters became such like, then when he was named Pasupati, plants became such-like.

It is clear as daylight that you will never understand the basic rules of Vedanta. Why are you so unwilling to learn etymology?

You have to stop taking words literally all the time. If you do, it leads to clashes within shruti itself.

Agni has three meanings, 1) Firegod, 2) Sacrifice...since all devas are obtained by sacrifice, they are all agni in that sense, 3) Foremost person.

Agni here does not pertain to the fire-god because:

- Agni is mentioned to be the lowest of Devas. So, how can he be Mahadeva?

However, we use the etymological meaning here. Agni accepts sacrifices of all devas. Hence, all Devas who have been born through sacrifice are called 'Agni'.

In that respect, Rudra is referred to as 'Agni'.

Proof - refer Rig Veda 2-1-6.

"tvamagne rudro asuro maho divastvaM shardho mArutaM pRkSa IshiSe |

tvaM vAtairaruNairyAsi shaMgayastvaM pUSA vidhataH pAsi nu tmanA ||"

This verse calls Rudra, Maruts, etc....all devas as agni. Note, Tvamagne Rudro.

Hence, any deva can be called Agni. Even Vishnu can be called Agni (refer verse 2-1-1), because He is Yajna Himself.

So all doubts are cleared - Rudra has a birth.

Satapatha Chapter on Pravargya or the birth of kumar will always be bone of contention.

There is no bone of contention or whatever. Shruti clearly says Rudra is sinful. Shruti calls Rudra as 'Agni' to denote two things 1) He was born of a sacrifice, 2) He is the 'foremost person'...'foremost' among devas, ie, Umapati Sankara.

No-one has ever denied this argument. No-one who knows Shruti, that is.

To some brahma is deluded or Vyasdev does not know srutis but he gave those so called tamsic puranas any way.

Funny, if Adi Sankara had no problem accepting it, I do not know why Ganesha Baby has any problems.

We may refer this matter to an expert (but again I fear that experts are themselves of many kinds, driven by their predilections.) The point is very clearly explained in Brihadaraynaka: "What did Brahman know that it became all?" Resolution of such debates is never possible. Ending of questions is never possible -- new doubts will be ever cropping up. Those with hierarchy problem will never be able to resolve so call contradiction.(because egos will always persists).

Jai Shree Krishna

Copy and paste Atanu's posts. Brilliant again.

Answer me a couple of questions, Ganeshprasad:

1) If you think Shathapatha Brahmana which refers to Mahadeva, Pasupati, Rudra, etc. does not talk of your deity Shiva, then on what basis do you claim that verses like 'Shiva is Suprme', pertains to your Rudra?

2) 'Among Devas, Agni is lowest and Vishnu is highest'. Hence, Mahadeva is not agni. He is called Agni because he is the product of a sacrifice Brahma performed to get him. Using etymology, one can say all devas are agni, because they are all products of sacrifice. Kapish?

Rig Veda says there is heirarchy among Devas. So, if you deny this, it renders your opinion invalid.

3) There are verses pertaining to creation of 11 Rudras, absence of Isana during pralaya, him being sinful (oh yes, its him), etc. Hence, its Rudra, all right.

And Vishnu is the Lord of sacrifice.

It is absolute hypocrisy that people blatantly say that 'Pasupati' and 'Mahadeva' is not Rudra, but when they see a quote saying, 'Mahadeva is supreme', they immediately assume its Rudra.

Dark Warrior · May 17, 2008

I will explain each verse of Shathapatha Brahmana.

By his Mind (manas) he entered into union with Speech (vâk): he became pregnant with eight drops. They were created as those eight Vasus

1: he placed them on this (earth).
6:1:2:77. By his Mind he entered into union with Speech: he became pregnant with eleven drops. They were created as those eleven Rudras 2: he placed them in the air

True. Brahma creates the Vasus and Rudras as his 'mind sons'. Krishna also confirms in Gita, that the mind sons were born of Him (Narayana).

Brahma is also a creation of Narayana (refer my Mahanarayana Upanishad quote). Hence, whatever he does, has to be within material jurisdiction.

Thus, all creations of a jiva are material. Narayana forces an atma into them to make them come to life. This Narayana, of course, is the indweller of Brahma.

Since you accept then, that all Rudras (including Sankara) were created by a being whose life-span is just 155 trillion human years, it can be concluded that these Rudras also must have a life span. Pramana - Refer to various quotes where it says that these Rudras disappear during pralaya.

No-one can create life, not even Narayana, the Brahman, does it. Only semitic religions speak of creation. According to Veda, we are eternal. Only material bodies can be created.

By his Mind he entered into union with Speech: he became pregnant. He created the All-gods: he placed them in the quarters

Its already been explained that Narayana is the ultimate cause. The gods created by Brahma are jivas because their faults are known. Indra, Vayu and Agni are shown to be boasting of their exploits in Kena Upanishad. Rudra is mentioned to be absent during pralaya and is sinful, etc.

Hence, they have normal failings of Jivas.

And so they say, 'After Agni having been created, the Vasus were created: he placed them on this (earth);--after Vâyu, the Rudras: (he placed) them in the air;--after the sun, the Âdityas: (he placed) them in the sky;--after the moon, the All-gods

1: he placed them in the quarters.'

Two points to note here:

1) All devas are jivas, this has been proven by me. Only way to reconcile statements like 'Narayana created devas', and 'Brahma created Devas'.

2) Birth of Agni, along with all Rudras (Including Sankara) is mentioned. Agni is mentioned as the 'lowest' deva.

the Gâyatrî consisting of eight syllables--therefore they say, 'Agni is Gâyatra.' That boy entered into the forms one after another; for one never sees him as a mere boy (kumâra), but one sees those forms of his 1, for he assumed those forms one after another

Gayatri is a sacrifice itself. Any mantra to propitiate Narayana is a sacrifice. Hence, Gayatri is Agni, because Agni is the medium of sacrifice.

This verse simply talks about how the boy was obtained by a sacrifice. 'One who sees him as a mere kumara, etc.' means that He was born of a special sacrifice, and hence is a form of 'agni', ie, a form of sacrifice itself. And indeed, he assumed the names of Mahadeva, Ugra, Bhaga, Pasupati, Shiva and became the leader of the Devas.

Here is proof - Krishna, in the Gita says that He is the Gayatri Mantra, sung by Brahmanas. Now, if you take Shathapatha Brahmana to literally mean that 'Agni, the firegod is Gayatri', it contradicts Gita.

Hence, we take the etymological meaning, 'Agni is Gayatri' means 'Sacrifice is Gayatri'. Since Vishnu is Sacrifice, it is reconciled with Gita.

And we apply this to 'Rudra is a form of Agni', which means, 'Rudra is a form of sacrifice', indicating that this Kumara who became Mahadeva Shiva was a product of Brahma's sacrifice.

In some places Prajapati is called Agni. In others, the month is called Agni. In another place, Agni is lauded as great.

The Aitreya Brahmana clearly says, 'Among Devas, Agni is the lowest and Vishnu is the Highest'. So, if we take the previous verses to mean Agni, a contradiction arises, because according to the Aitreya Brahmana, even the Prajapatis are greater than Agni. Hence, we take etymology for statements like 'Agni is Gayatri' and 'Rudra is Agni'.

'Rudra' here pertains to Mahadeva. That much is clear. And since the latter verses say that he is named Sarva and that waters become Sarva;That he is named Pasupati, and that the plants become Pasupati, etc...it means that as he gets these names, he is promoted to being a Mahadeva, with control over all devas.

One ought to build him (Agni, the fire-altar) up in (the space of) a year, and recite for a year. 'For two (years),' however, say some; 'for in one year they laid the seed, and in one year that boy was born, therefore let him build for two (years), and recite for two (years).'

This verse makes it clear that the boy was BORN of the sacrifice. He is therefore, not the firegod.

To him (Agni) when built up (kita) he gives a name: whereby he keeps away evil from him.

He calls him by a bright (kitra) name

2, saying, 'Thou art bright;' for Agni is all bright things

Again, make the same mistake. You keep taking the literal meaning and confuse everything.

Then, the reason for calling Agni as all devatas is very clear. Agni takes the sacrifice offered to the various devas. Agni, by doing so, pleases the Devas due to which Devas grant boons to us. thus the Devas are worshipped thru Agni. as all the Devas are present in this sacrificial fire to take their part of sacrifice, Agni is said to be all the Devas.

'Thou are Bright, as Agni is all bright things', means that everything bright can be called Agni. Rudra was bright, and hence he is also Agni.

Independently,

Rg Veda

1-156-4

tamasya rAjA varuNastamashvinA kratuM sacanta mArutasya vedhasaH |

dAdhAra dakSamuttamamaharvidaM vrajaM ca viSNuH sakhivAnaporNute ||"

Meaning:

"The royal Varuna and Asvins attain the function of protection(tam kratuM) of the creator of Maruts . That Visnu, with his companion(saki - Lakshmi), has the moksha sAmarthya to give moksha and makes the clouds to rain, seated upon the clouds."

Rg Veda 5-3-3

"By worshipping the feet of Visnu (VishnoRupamam), Maruts wish to attain the bright and coloured(wonderful) Rudra position. Hence, Rudra too keeps the secret name in his heart."

ahám evá svayám idáM vadaami júSTaM devébhir utá maánuSebhiH

yáM kaamáye táM-tam ugráM kRNomi tám brahmaáNaM tám R'SiM táM sumedhaám

10.125.05 I verily of myself declare this which is approved of by both gods and men; whomsoever I will, I render him Ugra(one of the names of Rudra), I make him BrahmA(Chaturmukha), a r.s.i, or a sage.

The speaker is Lakshmi. 'Ugra' here is none other than Rudra. Satapatha Brahmana confirms it again.

Clearly shows that each deva is simply a post occupied by a Jiva.

Rig Veda

10.82.6

"tamid garbhaM prathamaM dadhra Apo yatra devAHsamagachanta vishve |

ajasya nAbhAvadhyekamarpitaMyasmin vishvAni bhuvanAni tasthuH ||"

Meaning:

"The waters verily first retained the embryo in which all the devas were aggregated, single deposited on the navel of the unborn (creator), in which all beings abide."

This is nothing more than a reference to the lotus flower emerging from the navel of Vishnu.

Visnu is unborn, as said by TaittirIya Arayaka(3.13.1)

"ajAyamAno bahudhA vijAyate|"

Meaning:

"He is unborn yet He takes several births(avatars)."

Rg Veda(1.156.2) calls Vishnu as 'Self born'(sumajjAnaye).

Ganeshprasad · May 17, 2008

Pranam

Back again?

Cant let you get away with telling lies about Lord Shiva.

Read my sentence properly. I said, Valmiki should be used as standard for recognising authenticity of Puranas, and not vice versa.

Yes but then you used varah puran to explain this quote from Avinash In Mahabharat it is written that Krsna prayed to Shiva to which you replied Easily explained.

1) Varaha Purana explains that Shiva had asked the Supreme Lord Krishna for a boon,

So purana is now explaining Ithihasas yes.

Shruti mentions that Isana-Mahadeva was born from the forehead of Narayana,

and then you quote

And how can a sentient being be created through the mind? Use common sense

So why don’t you use common sense.

Very good statement though, just as how Rudra appear from Narayan head, common sense just don’t apply in the realms of Gods.

If Lord Shiva is born, which is contentious, death of Lord Vishnu is clearly mentioned, that’s is why I did not want to go there. We make apradh of huge proportion without self realisation.

How can a jiva put life into Rudra without an atma? It contradicts the basic purport of Vedanta that beings can be born from Brahma, the material creator, and exist without an atman.

Krishna says, 'Never was there a time when you or I, or any sentient being did not exist'. So, it means that Rudra, Agni, Vayu, etc. are all sentient beings (since they have life), and must have existed as well before they were created by Brahma.

You are simply letting your imagination running wild, and just loosing the plot.

Hence, it is inferred that Brahma creates bodies. Narayana forces the atman into them.

Your inference is wild and not supported anywhere.

You, of course, may say, 'Rudra, Agni, etc.' were born of Brahma's mind, and hence it makes them special, like an avatar or something. This is refuted by the fact that Brahma, Adityas, Vasus, Rudras, etc. are mentioned as distinct beings created by Narayana.

It follows that they are all Jivas.

Good and Vishu is one of the Aditya!

- Shruti says Brahma created Rudra.

- Shruti also says Narayana created Rudra.

Which can only mean Brahma and Narayana are not distinct, and Rudra appears out of their mind hardly a common birth as you might have all believe.

Hence it means, Rudra was created by Brahma, and the indweller injected an atma into the material body of Rudra.

You are simply stretching your imagination.

Brahma only creates material body.

Now that’s a first

Yes, the boy was born with sin. To ward of this sin/evil, Brahma gave him names like Rudra, Isana, Pasupati, Mahadeva, etc. which are asupicious names. It makes perfect sense.

That is your misunderstanding there is no sin and just because he got them names does not mean it is lord Shiva, when it clearly says this is eight forms of Agani.

Your english translator, of course, literally interprets 'Agni'. And a guy named 'Eggbert' or whatever is not an expert on Vedanta.

Yes master

It is clear as daylight that you will never understand the basic rules of Vedanta. Why are you so unwilling to learn etymology?

You mean rules that governs your understanding yes.

You have to stop taking words literally all the time. If you do, it leads to clashes within shruti itself.

Oh yes we will except every thing we like and reject everything else because it clashes with srutis, well that is your problem but srutis it self says

Ekam sad, vipra bahudha vadanti - RSi dirghatamas, Rig Veda I.164.46

truth is one, sages call it variously.

- Agni is mentioned to be the lowest of Devas. So, how can he be Mahadeva?

You will shoot your self in foot every time by your logic Agni is lowest and Vishnu is highest deva, but then there is only one Mahadeva.

There is no bone of contention or whatever. Shruti clearly says Rudra is sinful. Shruti calls Rudra as 'Agni' to denote two things 1) He was born of a sacrifice, 2) He is the 'foremost person'...'foremost' among devas, ie, Umapati Sankara.

No-one has ever denied this argument. No-one who knows Shruti, that is.

No this kumar who is born had no sins, Shathapatha Brahmana does not say so, it says To him (Agni) when built up (kita) he gives a name: whereby he keeps away evil from him.

Your saying, the boy is born with sin is pure mischief, see what Shathapatha Brahmana say,

6:1:3:99. Pragâpati said to him, 'My boy, why criest thou, when thou art born out of labour and trouble?' He said, 'Nay, but I am not freed from (guarded against) evil; I have no name given me: give me a name!' Hence one should give a name to the boy that is born, for thereby one frees him from evil;--even a second, even a third (name), for thereby one frees him from evil time after time.

Note names are given to ward off evil

6:1:3:1010. He said to him, 'Thou art Rudra 2.' And because he gave him that name, Agni became suchlike (or, that form), for Rudra is Agni: because he cried (rud) therefore he is Rudra. He said, 'Surely, I am mightier than that: give me yet a name!'

6:1:3:1111. He said to him, 'Thou art Sarva.' And because he gave the him that name, the waters became suchlike, for Sarva is the waters, inasmuch as from the water everything (sarva) here is produced. He said, 'Surely, I am mightier than that: give me yet a name!'

6:1:3:1212. He said to him, 'Thou art Pasupati.' And because he gave him that name, the plants became suchlike, for Pasupati is the plants: hence when cattle (pasu) get plants, then they play the master 3 (patîy). He said, 'Surely, I am mightier than that: give me yet a name!'

6:1:3:1313. He said to him, 'Thou art Ugra.' And

p. 160

because he gave him that name, Vâyu (the wind) became suchlike, for Ugra is Vâyu: hence when it blows strongly, they say 'Ugra is blowing.' He said, 'Surely, I am mightier than that: give me yet a name!'

6:1:3:1414. He said to him, 'Thou art Asani.' And because he gave him that name, the lightning became suchlike, for Asani is the lightning: hence they say of him whom the lightning strikes, 'Asani has smitten him.' He said, 'Surely, I am mightier than that: give me yet a name!'

6:1:3:1515. He said to him, 'Thou art Bhava.' And because he gave him that name, Parganya (the rain-god) became suchlike; for Bhava is Parganya, since everything here comes (bhavati) from the rain-cloud. He said, 'Surely, I am mightier than that: give me yet a name!'

6:1:3:1616. He said to him, 'Thou art Mahân Devah (the Great God).' And because he gave him that name, the moon became suchlike, for the moon is Pragâpati, and Pragâpati is the Great God. He said, 'Surely, I am mightier than that: give me yet a name!'

6:1:3:1717. He said to him, 'Thou art Îsâna (the Ruler).' And because he gave him that name, the Sun became suchlike, for Îsâna is the Sun, since the Sun rules over this All. He said, 'So great indeed I am: give me no other name after that!'

Isn’t funny this boy who is self aware, having given those names, one by one then Agni, Vayu, Asani and so on, became such like and finally stops at Isana, because isana is aditya, hey don’t let me stop you because Isana is non other then Aditya.

Just listen to what below is saying that’s all.

6:1:3:1818. These then are the eight forms of Agni. Kumâra (the boy) is the ninth: that is Agni's threefold state 1.

Funny, if Adi Sankara had no problem accepting it, I do not know why Ganesha Baby has any problems.

Did Adi Sankara say brahma was deluded or Vyasdev did not know srutis?

Jai Shree Krishna

Dark Warrior · May 17, 2008

Pranam

Cant let you get away with telling lies about Lord Shiva.

Yajur Veda says Rudra is akrurah, ie, Cruel, which is why he was selected for destroying Tripurasuras.

Yajur Veda vi. 2. 3.

"The Asuras had three citadels; the lowest was of iron, then there was one of silver, then one of gold. The gods could not conquer them; they sought to conquer them by siege; therefore they say--both those who know thus and those who do not--'By siege they conquer great citadels.' They made ready an arrow, Agni as the point, Soma as the socket, Visnu as the shaft. They said, 'Who shall shoot it?' [1] 'Rudra', they said, 'Rudra is cruel, let him shoot it.' He said, 'Let me choose a boon; let me be overlord of animals.' Therefore is Rudra overlord of animals(pasupathi)."

1) Rudra asks for a boon to become Pasupati.

2) Rudra is mentioned as cruel. Vishnu is called the shaft in the sense that He provides power to kill the asuras. But cruelty is clearly a feature of a Jiva.

Yes but then you used varah puran to explain this quote from Avinash In Mahabharat it is written that Krsna prayed to Shiva to which you replied Easily explained.

1) Varaha Purana explains that Shiva had asked the Supreme Lord Krishna for a boon,

So purana is now explaining Ithihasas yes.

You are quite delusional.

Only when Puranas contradict Ithihasas or Shruti should they be discarded.

Very good statement though, just as how Rudra appear from Narayan head, common sense just don’t apply in the realms of Gods.

Narayana being the indweller of Brahma, hence Shiva is born from Narayana's forehead, as Brahma creates.

Brahma creates because his indweller provides him the powers. Hence, Shiva is referred to being born from Brahma as well as from Narayana.

Its proof that Brahma and Shiva are Jivas.

If Lord Shiva is born, which is contentious, death of Lord Vishnu is clearly mentioned, that’s is why I did not want to go there. We make apradh of huge proportion without self realisation.

Contentious? Refer mahanarayana Upanishad,

Mahanarayana Upanishad says, "Again, Narayana, desiring something else, thought. From his forehead a person arose with three eyes and a trident, having glory, fame, truth, celibacy, austerity, detachment, mind, lordship, seven Vyahritis along with Pranava, Rik and other Vedas, all metres is his body – so, he is the great Lord."

Shiva is born. I assume you know that he has 3 eyes and a trident?

- Shiva is born.

- He is absent during pralaya.

- Satapatha Brahmana calls him sinful (and don't bring that lame Agni argument again).

- Yajur Veda calls him cruel.

- Rig Veda says he has an indweller.

Hence, Rudra is a jiva. Comprehend?

There is no death of Vishnu. Satapatha Brahmana simply talks of Vishnu as Yajneswara. Read it properly.

And certainly, Shiva is born.

You are simply letting your imagination running wild, and just loosing the plot.

Your inference is wild and not supported anywhere.

Funny, you completely ignore:

stuhi shrutaM gartasadaM yuvAnaM mRgaM na

bhImamupahatnumugram.h |

mRlA jaritre rudra stavAno.anyaM te asman ni vapantu

senAH ||

sage Gritsamada says: O Rudra (rudra) , you pray

(stuhi) to that (deity) who resides in the cave (of

heart) (gartasadaM), who is ever young (yuvAnaM), and

who took a fierce form to kill (the asura)

(upahatnumugram.h) and killed (the asura) by pouncing

(on Him) and who is conveyed by the entire Veda

(shrutaM: shrutyA dyotaM). ~ Rig Veda.

This verse proves that Rudra has an indweller. Curiously, this deity, who is hailed as the one who took a fierce form to kill an asura, appears to be none other than Narasimha!!

Any being who has an indweller is a Jiva. Mahabharata (Santi Parva) also confirms it.

Good and Vishu is one of the Aditya!

Rig Veda says Vishnu is unborn. Gita says 'Among Adityas, I am Vishnu.

Conclusion - This aditya is the Vamana avatar of Vishnu. And as you know, birth of an avatar is not a real 'birth'. Hence, Vishnu is not counted.

Vamana is the brother of Indra, ie, Upendra, and hence is an Aditya.

Which can only mean Brahma and Narayana are not distinct, and Rudra appears out of their mind hardly a common birth as you might have all believe.

Understand philosophy.

Narayana is the antaryami of Brahma, and hence, Rudra is mentioned as created by both.

Brahma is mentioned as created by Narayana. 'Eko Narayana...'says there was no Brahma, no Shiva, etc. during pralaya.

You are simply stretching your imagination.

Now that’s a first

Your incompetence is revealed by lack of pramanas and just nonsensical rambling.

That is your misunderstanding there is no sin and just because he got them names does not mean it is lord Shiva, when it clearly says this is eight forms of Agani.

THEN, WHY DO YOU THINK VERSES THAT SAY 'RUDRA IS SUPREME' PERTAINS TO MAHADEVA? THERE CANNOT BE TWO PASUPATIS.

"The pati of bhoota and praja, Brahma deva, underwent diksha for one year. He was a Grihasta. His wife was Usha. …….. Brahma deva let his veerya ( ‘rodho(a)sinchat’) to Usha. In a year, a son was born. The son cried. Brahma asked him, “ Son! Why are you crying. I got you as child after tough tapasya. The son said, “ I am not cleansed of sins. To wipe out my sins give me names. Brahma again told him, “ Let your name be Rudra.” …….. Rudra, Bhava, charva, Isana, Pathi(pasupathi), Bhima, Ugra – these seven names (were given by Brahma deva)"

Papa clearly is mentioned. Sayana, Adi Sankara, etc. even Advaitins accept it.

anapahatapapma - SINFUL. QUOTED BY ANCIENT SCHOLARS, WHO CALL THIS KUMARA AS MAHADEVA SHIVA.

And I have explained why every deva is called Agni. Or, as you call it, 'Agani'.

Selectively ignoring everything?

Yes master

You mean rules that governs your understanding yes.

Again, lack of a proper reply.

Oh yes we will except every thing we like and reject everything else because it clashes with srutis, well that is your problem but srutis it self says
Ekam sad, vipra bahudha vadanti - RSi dirghatamas, Rig Veda I.164.46

truth is one, sages call it variously.

That is a mistranslation. It says, 'Truth is One, but it has many Names'.

Secondly, the RV says that there is ONLY one God, who bears the names of all gods (it does not say all gods are same) -- yo devAnAM nAmadhA eka eva !!

Which means, 'There is one Brahman (truth), He has many names'.

Rig Veda says one God bears names of all Gods. Hence, Vishnu is Brahman, who has names like Rudra, Shambhu, Siva, Brahma, Indra, etc. Learn etymology.

You will shoot your self in foot every time by your logic Agni is lowest and Vishnu is highest deva, but then there is only one Mahadeva.

Um, Mahadeva is included in the hierarchy. Rig Veda says, 'Among Devas, Agni is lowest and Vishnu is highest'. Hence, Mahadeva is inferior to Vishnu.

'Mahadeva' means 'great deva'. It doesn't mean, 'Highest Deva'.

Vishnu is called Deva, because He alone is an avatar of Narayana who resides among Devas.

No this kumar who is born had no sins, Shathapatha Brahmana does not say so,

Ignored this, haven't you?

"anapahatapapma" is clearly mentioned in Satapatha Brahmana. It means, 'Not cleansed of sins'. The Kumara, who is Rudra, is shown to have papa, ie, sins. Your translator takes 'Papa' as evil, and says, 'not freed from evil'. A more appropriate word for 'papa' is 'sin'. In any case, Rudra is not freed from 'evil' or 'sin', whichever way you see it.

it says To him (Agni) when built up (kita) he gives a name: whereby he keeps away evil from him.

Again, selectively ignoring my explanation. Agni here does not pertain the firegod. ANY deva can be called Agni, as they all are propitiated through sacrifice, which requires fire (Agni).

Rig Veda calls all Devas as Agni, including Rudra and even Brahman (Vishnu). Hence, your opinion is false.

6:1:3:99. Pragâpati said to him, 'My boy, why criest thou, when thou art born out of labour and trouble?' He said, 'Nay, but I am not freed from (guarded against) evil; I have no name given me: give me a name!' Hence one should give a name to the boy that is born, for thereby one frees him from evil;--even a second, even a third (name), for thereby one frees him from evil time after time.

And 'Papa' here is translated as 'evil'. Eggbert is wrong.

In any case, even if we assume 'evil'. It means the boy is caught in evil. Which means, he is a jiva, as Brahman is free from evil. As mentioned before, all names belong to Brahman, hence, Brahman's names will free the boy from 'evil'.

The boy is Rudra.

Note names are given to ward off evil

6:1:3:1010. He said to him, 'Thou art Rudra 2.' And because he gave him that name, Agni became suchlike (or, that form), for Rudra is Agni: because he cried (rud) therefore he is Rudra. He said, 'Surely, I am mightier than that: give me yet a name!'

Explained already. All devas are Agni. Agni here means, 'Foremost Person', or 'Sacrifice'. Rudra is the foremost of the devas. He was also born after a sacrifice.

Hence, its Mahadeva.

6:1:3:1111. He said to him, 'Thou art Sarva.' And because he gave the him that name, the waters became suchlike, for Sarva is the waters, inasmuch as from the water everything (sarva) here is produced. He said, 'Surely, I am mightier than that: give me yet a name!'

The boy now is promoted to Lord over the waters.

6:1:3:1212. He said to him, 'Thou art Pasupati.' And because he gave him that name, the plants became suchlike, for Pasupati is the plants: hence when cattle (pasu) get plants, then they play the master 3 (patîy). He said, 'Surely, I am mightier than that: give me yet a name!'

Pasupati is a name of Shiva. No idiot will deny it. The boy attains control over nature now.

6:1:3:1313. He said to him, 'Thou art Ugra.' And
p. 160

because he gave him that name, Vâyu (the wind) became suchlike, for Ugra is Vâyu: hence when it blows strongly, they say 'Ugra is blowing.' He said, 'Surely, I am mightier than that: give me yet a name!'

Ugra is also a name of Rudra. Now, the boy attains control over Vayu, and hence, he is called 'Vayu'.

6:1:3:1414. He said to him, 'Thou art Asani.' And because he gave him that name, the lightning became suchlike, for Asani is the lightning: hence they say of him whom the lightning strikes, 'Asani has smitten him.' He said, 'Surely, I am mightier than that: give me yet a name!'

The boy attains cntrol over lightning,. Note, step by step, the boy becomes Lord of all devas.

6:1:3:1515. He said to him, 'Thou art Bhava.' And because he gave him that name, Parganya (the rain-god) became suchlike; for Bhava is Parganya, since everything here comes (bhavati) from the rain-cloud. He said, 'Surely, I am mightier than that: give me yet a name!'

Brahma gives the name 'Bhava' to Rudra.

6:1:3:1616. He said to him, 'Thou art Mahân Devah (the Great God).' And because he gave him that name, the moon became suchlike, for the moon is Pragâpati, and Pragâpati is the Great God. He said, 'Surely, I am mightier than that: give me yet a name!'

Mahadeva is a name of Shiva, once again. So, shut it.

6:1:3:1717. He said to him, 'Thou art Îsâna (the Ruler).' And because he gave him that name, the Sun became suchlike, for Îsâna is the Sun, since the Sun rules over this All. He said, 'So great indeed I am: give me no other name after that!'

There you go, Rudra becomes satisfied when he gets the name 'Isana'.

Isana is a name of Umapati Rudra. This Isana is mentioned to be absent during pralaya.

Isn’t funny this boy who is self aware, having given those names, one by one then Agni, Vayu, Asani and so on, became such like and finally stops at Isana, because isana is aditya, hey don’t let me stop you because Isana is non other then Aditya.

What nonsense are you blabbering about? The boy becomes Mahadeva. Since he attains lordship over Devas, he is identified with all Devas.

Just listen to what below is saying that’s all.

6:1:3:1818. These then are the eight forms of Agni. Kumâra (the boy) is the ninth: that is Agni's threefold state 1.

Agni has three states, true. Sacrifice, Foremost Person and Deva. Rudra is not Agni the Deva in any sense of the Word.

When Agni is mentioned to be the lowest Deva, what possesses you to assume that Agni bears the title of Mahadeva?

Notice, Ganeshprasad has posted absolutely no refutation on any pramana.

Did Adi Sankara say brahma was deluded or Vyasdev did not know srutis?

Vyasa knew Shruti, and that is why he has mentioned that Puranas have Guna Classification. Adi Sankara followed it. Brahma became jealous of Krishna and kidnapped the children. You think that a God can get jealous?

Adi Sankara called Shaivism as 'unvedic'. In his gita bhashya, he discourages worship of Shiva.

Dark Warrior · May 17, 2008

I will now make my position absolutely clear. Ganeshprasad - since you seem blind to pramanas, read this carefully, and see if you can refute any of this.

INDWELLER CONCEPT

Narayana is the indweller of everyone. That is substantiated as follows:

Subala Upanishad says,

"esha sarva bhUtAntarAtmA apahatapApmA divyo deva eko nArAyanah"

This says, Narayana, who is without defects, is the indweller of everyone. Therefore, any verse which praises Rudra is taken to mean Narayana.

Now, does Rudra have an indweller? Refer Sayana's commentary on Rig Veda,

stuhi shrutaM gartasadaM yuvAnaM mRgaM na

bhImamupahatnumugram.h |

mRlA jaritre rudra stavAno.anyaM te asman ni vapantu

senAH ||

sage Gritsamada says: O Rudra (rudra) , you pray

(stuhi) to that (deity) who resides in the cave (of

heart) (gartasadaM), who is ever young (yuvAnaM), and

who took a fierce form to kill (the asura)

(upahatnumugram.h) and killed (the asura) by pouncing

(on Him) and who is conveyed by the entire Veda

(shrutaM: shrutyA dyotaM). ~ Rig Veda.

This verse proves that Rudra has an indweller.

Narayana is eternal.Brahma is Narayana. Shiva is Narayana. Indra(Sakra) is Narayana ....." (Mahanarayana Upanishad)

it is stated that Brahma,Shiva,Indra are Narayana. it is also said that Narayana created Brahma,Indra etc.

therefore,it is even more clear that Narayana on creating the devas, made them powerful, by giving them powers residing as the Antaryami in them

AGNI AS ALL DEVAS

"tvamagne rudro asuro maho divastvaM shardho mArutaM pRkSa IshiSe |

tvaM vAtairaruNairyAsi shaMgayastvaM pUSA vidhataH pAsi nu tmanA ||"

This verse calls Rudra, Maruts, etc....all devas as agni. Note, Tvamagne Rudro.

Hence, any deva can be called Agni. Even Vishnu can be called Agni (refer verse 2-1-1), because He is Yajna Himself.

Therefore, when satapatha Brahmana calls Pasupati, Mahadeva, Rudra, etc. as Agni, the fact remains, that this isn't the firegod. ANY Deva can be called Agni BECAUSE THEY ALL ACQUIRE BOONS THROUGH SACRIFICE.

Thus, calling Rudra as Agni, does not make Mahadeva as Agni. Since Agni is mentioned as lowest of Devas, and Satapatha Brahmana calls Rudra as 'Isana', it follows that this kumara is not Agni, the firegod.

BIRTH OF RUDRA/RUDRA AS JIVA

'eko nArAyaNa AsIt.h na brahmA na IshAnaH ' means only Narayana existed in the begining, no Brahma or Shiva (also known as Isha) existed.

Isana is the name of Rudra, as it is mentioned in Gita, Mahabharata and even in Shruti.

Rudra is absent during Pralaya, hence he is Jiva.

atha puruSho ha vai naaraayaNo 'kaamayata prajaa sR^ijeyeti |

naaraayaNaat praaNo jaayate manaH sarvendriyaaNi cha kha.m vaayur jyotir aapaH pR^ithivii vishvasya dhaariNii |

naaraayaNaad brahmaa jaayate |

naaraayaNaad rudro jaayate |

naaraayaNaad indro jaayate |

naaraayaNat prajaapatiH prajaayate |

naaraayaNaad dvadashaadityaa rudraa vasavaH sarvaaNi chandaa.msi naaraayaNaad eva samutpadyante naaraayaNat pravartante naaraayaNe praliiyante |

etad R^ig-vedo-shiro 'dhiite || naaraayaNopaniShad 1 ||

Naaraayana is the Supreme Lord. He desired, "I shall create children." From Naaraayana the life breath, mind, all the senses, either, air, fire, water, and earth, which maintains the universe, were born. From Naaraayana Brahmaa was born. From Naaraayana Shiva was born. From Naaraayana Indra was born. From Naaraayana Prajaapati was born. From Naaraayana the twelve Adityas, the Rudras, the Vasus, and all the Vedic hymns were born. From Naaraayana they were manifested. Into Naaraayana they again enter. This is the crown of the R^ig Veda (nArAayaNopaniShad 1).

Birth of Rudra is mentioned.

There is another Rigvedic text, which says that Rudra doesn't fully understand the actions of 'savitr' (na yasyendro varuNo na mitro vratamaryamA na minanti rudraH). So, he is not absolutely a jnani.

ahám evá svayám idáM vadaami júSTaM devébhir utá maánuSebhiH

yáM kaamáye táM-tam ugráM kRNomi tám brahmaáNaM tám R'SiM táM sumedhaám

10.125.05 I verily of myself declare this which is approved of by both gods and men; whomsoever I will, I render him Ugra(one of the names of Rudra), I make him BrahmA(Chaturmukha), a r.s.i, or a sage.

The speaker is Lakshmi. 'Ugra' here is none other than Rudra. Satapatha Brahmana confirms it again.

Finally another sukta (vayA viSNoreSasya prabhRthe havirbhiH | vide hi rudro rudriyaM) tells us that rudra gets his 'rudratva' from his prayers to Vishnu.

SATAPATHA BRAHMANA ISSUE

Names like Mahadeva, Pasupati, Isana are all exclusively the names of Rudra. There is no avoiding this.

The accurate translation of the Kumara's speech:

so(a)braveet anapahatapapma vaa ahamanahithanama | nama me dehi paapno(a)pahatya iti

Note the words 'Paapno' an 'Anapahatapapma'....meaning, sins. No two ways about it.

AGAIN, ANSWER A SIMPLE QUESTION - IF YOU THINK PASUPATI, ISANA AND MAHADEVA DO NOT PERTAIN TO RUDRA, HOW DO YOU ASSUME ALL VERSES LIKE 'SHIVA/RUDRA IS SUPREME PERTAIN TO MAHADEVA?

Calling Rudra as Agni is simply to denote that he was born of the sacrifice. No english translator like eggbert can do justice to this.

The Kumara has sins. Brahma therefore, gives him power and names like Rudra, Ugra, Pasupati, etc. This Kumara is Mahadeva Shiva, who is called Agni simply because he is the product of a sacrifice, and is foremost among devas.

Therefore, Shiva was born. And it has been demonstrated by Sayana's commentaries that Shiva is sinful.

VISHNU AS SUPREME

Refer all pramanas I provided above. In my previous post itself there is enough indication of this - Vishnu is unborn, has no equal, takes avatars, etc.

Narayana Vidmahe Vasudevaya Dimahe Tanno Vishnoh Prachodayat identifies Vishnu asn an avatar of Narayana.

Mahanarayana Upanishad refers to a 'Being on the Ocean' as Supreme. Sri Ramanujacharya has quoted it.

Ganeshprasad has been revealed to be ignorant, hypocritical and plain misleading. According to him, an entity born with sins (or even 'not freed from evil', as his english commentator claims) is not Rudra-Shiva even though he bears the names of Isana, Maahadeva and Pasupati.

Ganeshprasad needs to answer these questions to gain credibility:

- If this Rudra is Agni, then why does the Aitreya Brahmana say that 'Agni is the lowest Deva'? After all, this Kumara became Mahadeva, so he is not lowest!!

- Rig Veda mentions that any Deva, be he Indra, Brahma, Rudra, can be called Agni. Why does Ganesha ignore this?

- I have provided etymological explanations for why Agni is referred to here. Why does Ganeshprasad ignore this?

Typical. Selective interpretation of shruti.

Ganeshprasad · May 17, 2008

Pranam

Ganeshprasad needs to answer these questions to gain credibility:

- If this Rudra is Agni, then why does the Aitreya Brahmana say that 'Agni is the lowest Deva'? After all, this Kumara became Mahadeva, so he is not lowest!!

- Rig Veda mentions that any Deva, be he Indra, Brahma, Rudra, can be called Agni. Why does Ganesha ignore this?

- I have provided etymological explanations for why Agni is referred to here. Why does Ganeshprasad ignore this?

Typical. Selective interpretation of shruti.

Let me tell you why because when the truth stares in your face you have to rely on refuting it with vivid imeginations, you have to accept some parts and reject the most, you have to rely on Bramha being deluded, Vyasdev ji did not know what he wrote in Other purans, he forgot to tell the readers reject this Tamsic or Rajsic purans of mine, I don’t know why took time to wright them in the first place.

My ista deva is Lord Krishna but I can not bare see denegrate of Lord Shiva, I copy and paste how a Shiva bhakta see their Lord, think what you like, I am going to take break now for a while.

Vedic Shaivism

"Be gracious unto us, o Rudra, bring us bliss!" (Rigveda, I.114.2).

Out of 6 main Shaiva-sampradayas five are Agamic and one is Vedic. This one is Pashupata-shaivism (see G.V.Tagare, "Saivism: Some Glimpses", Delhi, 1996, p. 3). Pashupatism is the earliest Hindu cult that survived till present time.

Worship of Shiva (as Bhava, Rudra or Pashupati) was prominent already in Vedic times. Rigveda (I.43.5) calls Rudra "luminous like the Sun, gratifying like gold, best among the Gods".

The famous Mrityunjaya-mantra of Shiva occurs both in Rigveda ( VII.59.12) and Yajurveda. The great mantra of Shiva, Panchakshari, appears already in Yajurveda, in the Rudradhyaya section of Taittiriya-samhita (IV.5.7) and Satarudriya of Vajasaneyi-samhita (Ch. 16,18).

Five mantras of Shiva, corresponding to five letters of Panchakshari, are found in Taittiriya-aranyaka ( 17.1-5); Sayanacharya, a famous Rigveda commentator, regards that the first words of these mantras are the names of the five Shiva's faces. Parts of these five mantras were taken by Lakulisha (100 B.C.E.), a Pashupata-shaiva teacher and reformer, into his Pashupata-sutra ( 1.40-44).

Rudra is identified with Indra and Agni, main deities of Rigveda. Maitrayani-samhita of Samaveda (II.1.10) and Shatapatha-brahmana of Yajurveda (VI.1.3.10) say "agnirvai rudraH", while Rigveda (II.33.3 ) and Atharvanaveda ( IV.28.3; II.2.7; X.1.23) describe Him as a thousand-eyed God, a holder of vajra and a killer or Vritra, i.e. Indra.

Vedas identify Rudra with Rigvedic (X.90) primal Purusha. Taittiriya-aranyaka (X.14 ) calls Purusha as Bhutanamadhipati, i.e. Rudra; Yajurveda (Taittiriya-samhita, IV.5.1) describes Him in a same manner as a Virat-Purusha, and same is repeated in Shvetashvatara-upanishad (which belongs to Taittiriya-brahmana).

Sayanacharya while commenting upon the verse IV.28.1 of Atharvanaveda, tells us that the Lord is called Bhava for having everything coming out of His body, and that He is called Sarva because of His destructive character at the time of dissolution.

Shatapatha-brahmana ( VI.1.3.17) says that Ishana, the highest form of Rudra, is same as Aditya. Shvetashvatara-upanishad clearly describes Rudra as the Supreme God, Maheshvara (IV.10), Purusha of Rigveda and Vishvakarman who is seated in the hearts of all human beings ( IV.17). Thus, Rigvedic Vishvakarma-daivata hymn (X.81) also describes Rudra and no other god. Rudra is identical to Soma, who was worshipped in a pillar, very similarly to Shivalinga worship.

Mandukya-upanishad (verse 7) names the fourth, the highest pada of Brahman, as Shiva.

Mahabharata mentions Krishna's initiation into Pashupatism (Anushasana-parvan, 14.379-380). In the same chapter Yajnavalkya and Vedavyasa are said to have been Pashupata-shaivas. Gautama and Kanada, founders of Nyaya and Vaisheshika schools respectively, were Pashupatas (see Prof. R.K. Siddhantashastri, "Saivism Through the Ages", Delhi, 1975, p. 99).

To conclude with, Shaivism is essentially Vedic religion (as Pashupatism), which later got developed with the independent Agamic revelation. This Agamic revelation is considered to be the essence of Vedas.

In Bhairava-Agamas Shaivism takes a Shakta form, but this Agamic Shaktism has its root in Vedas again. Shakta-Agamas view Vedic Agni (who is said to be all Gods together: Aitareya-brahmana, II.6.3) as Devi, Durga, Bhairavi or Kundalini. Durga is invoked with Vedic Rik ( I.99.1) connected with Agni. In Devi-upanishad, also known as Devyatharva-shirsha (verse 9), Durga is called Agnivarna and Tapasa-jvalanti.

Agni and Soma of Vedas (invoked in pair, for example, in Rigveda, I.93), or Agni and Indra (similarly coming in pair: Rigveda, I.21), are Shakti and Shiva of Tantras.

Sri Bhaskararaya in Lalitasahasranama-bhashya (Name 407) quotes Shruti: "One Rudra hidden in all beings, he is with Maya, with parts and without parts. He is Devi herself, and is not separated from her. By knowing this, one attains immortality."

Supreme Shakti of Tantras was known in Vedic times as Aditi, mother of gods, and her manifestations were Sarasvati, Ushas ("Face of Aditi" — Rigveda, I.113.19) and alike. Rigveda (I.89.10) says: "Aditi is Heaven, Aditi is Mid-region, Aditi is Mother (Earth), Father and Son. She is all the Gods; she is the Five peoples. Aditi is all that is born and what is to be." In Rigvedic Devi-sukta ( X.125.3-4) the Goddess says: "The Queen, I am the dispenser of wealth; conscious, I am the first among the Gods… They that ignore me run to ruin."

Kena-upanishad (which belongs to Tandya or Jaimini-brahmana of Samaveda) shows Uma revealing the knowledge of Brahman to the gods (according to Mahavasishtha, "Uma is so called because it contains the essence of the Pranava").

In Muktika canon there are eight Upanishads devoted specifically to Shakti: Bahvricha, Bhavana, Devi, Saubhagyalakshmi, Savitri, Sita, Tripura, Tripuratapini.

The worship of Shakti as the Yoni has also got Vedic roots: Aitareya-brahmana ( II.6.3) says that "Agni is the womb of the Gods"; Shvetashvatara (V.5) calls Rudra as "Yoni"; and Brihadaranyaka (Kanva VI.4.2) refers to worship of women's Yoni by Prajapati. Both Brihadaranyaka (Kanva VI.4.3; VI.2.13) and Chandogya ( II.13.1-2) view ***ual act as holy practice. Tantric doctrine of divine nature of women also finds support in Vedic Shruti (Brihadaranyaka, Kanva III.9.11).

"May the Goddesses favour us with increase and great happiness!" (Rigveda, I.22.11).

Regards

Prasanna Kumar

Pāñcākshara recalls (in reverse order) both the Pāñca Brahma of the Taittirīya Āranyaka and the Pāndavas (Pāñca Deva ~ Five Lords) of the Mahābhārata. And these Five Heads of Brahma reveal the Five Faces of the Śiva Linga.

The Pāñcabrahma Mantra is the Brahmaśiras (Head of Brahma) weapon that Śiva gave to Arjuna, which came to be known as the Pāśupatāstra (Weapon of the Lord of Animals).

Ya is known as Sadyojāta (First Born) or Mahādeva (Great Lord), the Eastern Face of the Śiva Linga; and it corresponds with Yudhishthira (Steady in Battle).

सद्योजातं प्रपद्यामि सद्योजायाय वै नमः ।

sadyoj

ātam prapadyāmi sadyojāyāya vai namah

I take refuge in the First Born; verily I bow to the First Born

भवे भवे नातिभवे भवस्व मां भवोद्भवाय नमः ॥

bhave bhave n

ātibhave bhavasva mām bhavodbhavāya namah

Do not consign me to birth after birth; guide me beyond birth; I bow to the Causer of Birth

V

ā is known as Vāmadeva (Noble Lord) or Bhairava (Fearsome), the Southern Face of the Linga; and it corresponds with Bhīma (Formidable).

वामदेवाय नमो ज्येष्ठाय नमः श्रेष्टाय नमो रुद्राय नमः कालाय नमः

v

āmadevāya namo jyeshthāya namah śreshtāya namo rudrāya namah kālāya namah

Bow to the Noble One, to the Eldest; to the Best; to the Howler; and to Time

कलविकरणाय नमो बलाय नमो बलविकरणाय नमो बलप्रथनाय नमः

kalavikaran

āya namo balāya namo balavikaranāya namo balaprathanāya namah

Bow to the Incomprehensible, to Strength, to the Cause of the Various Forces, and to the Extender of Strength

सर्वभूतदमनाय नमो मनोन्मनाय नमः ॥

sarvabh

ūtadamanāya namo manonmanāya namah

Bow to the One who Subdues All Beings, and who Kindles the Light

The V

āmadeva Mantra appeals to 11 Rudrah, and the Eleven are named in the Mahābhārata as: Mrigavyādha (the Hunter), Śarva (Armed with Arrows), Nirriti, Ajaikapād, Ahirbudhnya, Pinākin (Armed with a Bow), Dahana (Fire), Īśvara (Ruler), Kapālin (Bearing Skulls), Sthānu (Standing Firmly), and Bhava (Existence).

Śi is known as Aghora (Fearless) or Nandivaktra (Happy Face), the Western Face of the Linga; and it corresponds with Arjuna (Bright).

The Aghora Mantra appeals to each and every one of the innumerable Rudrah.

अघोरेभ्योऽथ घोरेभ्यो अघोरघोरतरेभ्यः ।

aghorebhyo'tha ghorebhyo aghoraghoratarebhyah

To those Not Terrible and to those Terrible, and to those both Not Terrible and Terrible

सर्वतः शर्वः सर्वेभ्यो नमस्ते रुद्र रूपेभ्यः ॥

sarvatah

śarvah sarvebhyo namaste rudra rūpebhyah

Everywhere and Always, O

Śarva, I Bow to All Thy Rudra Forms

Mah is known as Tatpurusha (Supreme Spirit) or Um

āvaktra (Shining Face), the Northern Face of the Linga; and it corresponds with Nakula (the Mongoose). Tatpurusha is the Rudra Gāyatrī.

तत्पुरुषाय विद्महे महादेवाय धीमहि ।

tatpurush

āya vidmahe mahādevāya dhīmahi

May we Know that Supreme Person and Meditate on that Great God

तन्नो रुद्रः प्रचोदयात् ॥

tanno rudrah pracoday

āt

May Rudra Impel us to That

Na is

Īśāna (the Master) or Sadāśiva (Ever Auspicious), the Ūrdhvavaktra (Upward Face) of the Linga, and it corresponds with Sahadeva (Among the Gods).

ईशानः सर्वविद्यानामीश्वरः सर्वभूतानां ब्रह्माधिपतिर्ब्रह्मणोऽधिपतिर् ।

īśānah sarvavidyānāmīśvarah sarvabhūtānām brahmādhipatirbrahmano'dhipatir

Ruler of All Knowledge, Master of All Beings, Commander of Sacred Study and Devotion

ब्रह्मा शिवो मे अस्तु स एव सदाशिव ओम् ॥

brahm

āśivo me astu sa eva sadāśiva om

The God Auspicious to Me, Be He Just So, the Ever Auspicious Om

Namah thus represents the A

śvinau (Nakula & Sahadeva), and they carry this Submission to Śiva.

Jai Shree Krishna

suchandra · May 17, 2008

SHIVA TRANCE

<embed src="

" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" height="355" width="425">

Dark Warrior · May 18, 2008

Pranam

Let me tell you why because when the truth stares in your face you have to rely on refuting it with vivid imeginations, you have to accept some parts and reject the most, you have to rely on Bramha being deluded, Vyasdev ji did not know what he wrote in Other purans, he forgot to tell the readers reject this Tamsic or Rajsic purans of mine, I don’t know why took time to wright them in the first place.

Great work. Is that the best answer you can give me?

Ignoramus, your opinions violate the basic laws of sanskrit grammar, and cleanly flouts many verses of the Veda. When I point this out to you, you talk of 'truth staring me in the face'? Tell me, have you ever read any Bhashyas, or attended any discourses on philosophy? You can't even express your views properly, as you appear to be illiterate.

What's worse is, your brain is completely unable to comprehend philosophy. So, when I explain the Soul/Body concept to you, it seems as if you can't even understand any learned posts. So, basically, arguing with you is like arguing with a dead fish....no reaction or response at all.

Vivid imagination? Oh, I suppose the greats like Sayanacharya, Adi Sankaracharya, Ramanujacharya, Madhvacharya, etc. all had vivid imaginations? And I suppose Ganeshprasad, who can't even write in proper english, knows more than all of these acharyas put together? I suppose you want to write a Bhashya on Brahma Sutras?

NOBODY in the history of Vedanta has ever used Shiva Purana as authority. NO acharya, not one. Even Shaivas like Appaya Dikshitar stuck to Shruti (and failed miserably).

Why did Hari take time to come as Buddha and delude so many people? Same reason. Some people (like you, obviously), are not ready to understand the kalyana gunas of the Lord due to Karma. Hence, the Lord out of his kindness, gives them temporary faiths to follow (refer Bhagavad Gita). Once their Karmas are cleansed, they get births where they attain realisation.

Truth is there in the Veda, yet you reject it. Vaishnavas have no bias. We don't have an agenda to prove X or Y is supreme, but rather, examine the scripture to reach the conclusion.

Scripture declares that Hari is Supreme.

--

OK, I will be more civil here. Admin5 told me to cool it, but its really infuriating, talking to a dead fish like Ganeshprasad. He just can't understand anything about Vedanta.

Matsya Purana says, 'The Puranas that glorify Hari are Sattvik, those that glorify Brahma are Rajasic and those that glroify Shiva are Tamasic.

Padma Purana quotes Shiva as saying the same thing to Parvati.

So, Vyasa has explained it to us.

Tamasic Puranas have a purpose. Do you know why Shiva is called 'Pasupati'? He obtained a boon from Vishnu, whereby those people, who are not cleansed of Karma, would worship him mistakenly as supreme. These people, after many births of worshipping Shiva, will worship Krishna.

Now, I probably have been given the grace of Vishnu to understand this. But since you don't, it is clear that you have fallen into a trap.

So, understand, I am not a 'Shiva Dveshi'. I am telling the truth. Shiva is not tamasic, but he is an exalted jivatma. Shiva Purana is misleading, and hence tamasic.

Vishnu misleads as Buddha. Vishnu, therefore, is capable of misleading anyone./

My ista deva is Lord Krishna but I can not bare see denegrate of Lord Shiva, I copy and paste how a Shiva bhakta see their Lord, think what you like, I am going to take break now for a while.

First of all, there is no concept of 'Ishta Devta' in Vedanta. The Rig Veda itself talks of a hierarchy, so the idea of anyone choosing any god is ridiculous. Only the likes of Neovedantins and mordern Advaitins follow this stupid concept.

So, stretching this Ishta Devta concept, one can say that by worshipping even a cat or a dog one can get moksha.

Idiocy.

"Be gracious unto us, o Rudra, bring us bliss!" (Rigveda, I.114.2).

This is why Shaivism is rejected as unvedic.

Rudra, in sanskrit, has 3 meanings:

- He who destroys misery.

- He who makes others cry.

- He who howls.

Now, Rig Veda says, all names belong to Brahman (note, it doesn't say all Gods are same). Hence, 'Rudra' here simply pertains to Vishnu, as Vishnu is the giver of bliss, He destroys misery, He makes His bhaktas cry (out of joy).

Shaivism is unvedic. And you ignore the Satapatha Brahmana verse that says 'Rudra has papa' whereas you take this Rudra to be Shiva?

Rest of your nonsense is similar. Since all names are applicable to Vishnu, there is absolutely no doubt that any hymn glorifying Shiva pertains to Vishnu. And even if a hymn calls Shiva 3 eyed, and calls him Brahman, it is understood that Narayana is the indweller, as pramanas exist for it.

Shaivites take all names such as 'Shiva' or 'Rudra' literally and assume its Mahadeva. Its actually Vishnu. Refer Sahasranama, where Vishnu is called 'Rudra' and 'Shiva'.

And yes, there are some verses that call Mahadeva as supreme. But since there are other verses that say he has had a birth, and hence a beginning, being part of Narayana's creation, it can be reconciled as follows - Verses glorifying Devas are simply meant for the indweller who is Vishnu. Veda supports this conclusion.

Rig Veda says Rudra has an indweller, Mahanarayana Upanishad says he was created by Narayana (indweller of Brahma), Rig Veda also says he lacks Jnana to understand Savitr, Satapatha Brahmana says, He was not cleansed of sins as a child and Rig Veda says he prays to Vishnu for his Rudra-Strength. So, hymns like the Sri Rudram, first glorify the deva, but the prayer is simply meant for Narayana, who is Parabrahman.

Since Shaivites can't refute this, they put out stupid claims like, 'Oh, archaeology says Pasupata religion is oldest'. Ganeshprasad, do you believe that our Ithihasas are true? If so, Krishna came in Dwapara Yuga, Rama in Treta Yuga, etc. Hence, Vaishnavism, and every other Vedic religion is eternal, irrespective of archaeology.

So, therefore, stop quoting stupid Shaivite interpretations. 1)Ramanujacharya and Madhvacharya provide sufficient pramanas to refute Shaivites, 2) Adi Sankara himself defeated a Kapalika, and called the Pasupata religion as unvedic. Instead, he actually accepts the Vaishnava religion as authentic. Refer to his Brahma Sutra Bhashya.

Let me break Ganeshprasad's stupid theology apart:

He contends that:

- Satapatha Brahmana talks about Agni.

- That the Kumara is not evil.

- That Brahma 'created' Gods!!

Let us examine the evidence.

- Sanskrit word 'Papa' means Sin. Hence, the Kumara is sinful. No evading this.

- Since the Kumara was born with sins, it follows that he is jiva, and not Brahman, or an avatar, or whatever.

- Therefore, it is proven that Brahma does not create 'Gods' but rather only material bodies.

Now, let us examine the identity of this Kumara,

- This Kumara is called one of the forms of Agni.

- We know, from Aitreya Brahmana, that 'Among Devas, Agni is the lowest and Vishnu is highest.

- However, this Kumara becomes Mahadeva, Isana (ruler), etc. Hence, it is inferred that a low deva like Agni could never get such power.

- So, we turn to etymology - Agni means sacrifice, or the foremost person.

- Proof is also provided in Rig Veda, which says, ANY deva, including Brahman, can be called 'Agni'. Refer my earlier post for this.

- Therefore, it is clear that this Mahadeva is not Agni, the firegod.

- Hence, the Mahadeva, who goes by the name of 'Isana', 'Pasupati' and 'Ugra' is none other than Shiva.

Now, let us turn to the issue of whether Devas are paramatma or jivatma,

- It has been proven that the Kumara is Shiva.

- So, it means, Shiva is a jiva who rose to the position of Mahadeva.

- This means, all devas are jivas.

- All devas are mentioned as 'Created' by Vishnu. Hence, they are not avatars, or anything special. They are included as a part of creation (shrishti) with sun, moon, etc. Hence, they are Jivas.

So, Ganeshprasad is found to be completely in line with Vyasa's quote - the Ignorant are mislead and follow Tamasic Puranas. His ignorance,disrespect for Vedanta and complete disregard for pramanas and logic has been exposed.

Nobody can argue with a person like Ganeshprasad who doesn't know the etymology of the Veda, or the means of debating, or how to take statements which are contradictory and thread them together.

Ganeshprasad is the typical example of why our culture is going downhill. No hindu nowadays makes the effort to understand Veda. Hindus like Ganeshprasad have no knowledge of Veda, or our great tradition of polemics, as they have been brainwashed by Vivekananda, Ramakrishna and all those pseudo-sadhus.

Its blind faith all the way, and its detrimental. Ganeshprasad is a disgrace to Vedanta. I advise him to stop torturing the Vedas this way.

Dark Warrior · May 18, 2008

Even I am capable of refuting these stupid claims of Shaivites. Imagine what a real Vedantin would do.

Rigveda (I.43.5) calls Rudra "luminous like the Sun, gratifying like gold, best among the Gods".

Rudra is a name of Vishnu. Already explained. And Vishnu is the best among gods. He is mentioned as the origin of Devas, as Self-Born, as having no equal, etc. in many places in Rig Veda.

The famous Mrityunjaya-mantra of Shiva occurs both in Rigveda ( VII.59.12) and Yajurveda. The great mantra of Shiva, Panchakshari, appears already in Yajurveda, in the Rudradhyaya section of Taittiriya-samhita (IV.5.7) and Satarudriya of Vajasaneyi-samhita (Ch. 16,18).

These mantras do pertain to the Mahadeva. But since it has already been explained that Rudra has an indweller, and that Narayana created Rudra, this is easily reconciled by saying that these mantras pertain to the indweller. In fact, Sri Rudram Chamakam supports it.

Some scholars use another method to explain this. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad calls all of creation as the body of Brahman. Since Brahman is Vishnu, and the devas are a part of creation, these mantras then glorify a deva named Rudra, who is one of the angas (limbs) of Vishnu. Since Vishnu is the soul of His body, it follows that the name of the body can be applied to the Soul.

There are multiple ways to defeat Shaivites.

Vedas identify Rudra with Rigvedic (X.90) primal Purusha. Taittiriya-aranyaka (X.14 ) calls Purusha as Bhutanamadhipati,

Wrong, the Purusha Sukta calls the Purusha as the consort of Lakshmi and Hree. Hence, 'Purusho vai Rudra' again refers to Vishnu alone, and not Rudra.

Rudra is identified with Indra and Agni, main deities of Rigveda.

Typical Shaivite logic. The 'main deity' of Rk, Sama, Yajur, Atharva is Vishnu, and not any other deva.

Agni is applicable to all devas, and not necessarily the firegod. Indra is associated with Rudra in two cases, 1) Indra fights with Mahadeva, 2) Sometimes, Vishnu is the one referred to as Rudra.

Maitrayani-samhita of Samaveda (II.1.10) and Shatapatha-brahmana of Yajurveda (VI.1.3.10) say "agnirvai rudraH", while Rigveda (II.33.3 ) and Atharvanaveda ( IV.28.3; II.2.7; X.1.23) describe Him as a thousand-eyed God, a holder of vajra and a killer or Vritra, i.e. Indra.

Shathapatha Brahmana has been explained by me.

And the thousand eyed god-hymn also has the word 'Girisanta', which refers to Vishnu as indweller, I believe. Vaishnava acharyas have clarified that as well.

Sayanacharya while commenting upon the verse IV.28.1 of Atharvanaveda, tells us that the Lord is called Bhava for having everything coming out of His body, and that He is called Sarva because of His destructive character at the time of dissolution.

Sayana does not calll this Lord as Mahadeva, but Shaivites take it to be so.

Sayana understands that this Rudra was given the name Bhava upon his birth in Satapatha Brahmana. So, here Bhava refers to the Supreme Lord, who according to Rg veda, is the owner of all names. Bhava and Sarva here refer to Vishnu.

As Krishna says in Gita, 'Creation, Preservation and Destruction are done by Me alone'.

Rudra is identical to Soma, who was worshipped in a pillar, very similarly to Shivalinga worship.

Soma is the juice that strengthens all devas. It is a stretch to say only Rudra is identical with Soma, when both Agni and Indra are also shown to gain strength from it. Vishnu is also identified with Soma.

Calling this pillar a Shiva-Linga has no backing. Nowhere is this pillar even hinted to be a Linga.

Shvetashvatara-upanishad clearly describes Rudra as the Supreme God, Maheshvara (IV.10), Purusha of Rigveda and Vishvakarman who is seated in the hearts of all human beings ( IV.17). Thus, Rigvedic Vishvakarma-daivata hymn (X.81) also describes Rudra and no other god

Rudra refers to Vishnu, in Svet.Up.

Adi Sankara translates 'Mahesvara' as 'Lord of the Worlds'. He then says, Vishnu is Mahesvara!!

Again, make the same mistake.

Mandukya-upanishad (verse 7) names the fourth, the highest pada of Brahman, as Shiva

'Shiva' means 'Auspicious One'. Hence, the verse simply says Brahman is auspicious. No mention of Mahadeva here.

To conclude with, Shaivism is essentially Vedic religion (as Pashupatism), which later got developed with the independent Agamic revelation. This Agamic revelation is considered to be the essence of Vedas.

To conclude with, Shaivism is a crock of nonsense, and has no Vedic backing. Shaiva Agamas and Shiva Purana are the only texts these people can rely on.

Sri Yamunacharya has authored a brilliant work in which he proves that Vaishnava Pancharatra Agamas are alone the essence of the Veda. Although Vaishnavas accept that Shaiva Agamas have their origin in Shiva, it has no Vedantic backing, and is simply meant for worship of Shiva.

Avinash · May 18, 2008

DW,

When there is one verse, which casts doubt on Shiva's supremacy and another, which calls Shiva as supreme, then you take the first one on face value and interpret the second to make it consistent with the first.

But you are doing just the opposite in case of Vishnu.

If there is one verse, which casts doubt on Vishnu's supremacy and another, which calls Vishnu as supreme, then you take the second one on face value and interpret the first to make it consistent with the second.

If you can interpret "Shiva is supreme" to mean that the indweller Vishnu within Shiva is supreme, then I can interpret "Vishnu is supreme" to mean that the indweller Brahman within Vishnu is supreme.

Dark Warrior · May 18, 2008

And once again, you exhibit complete ignorance by claiming this. How many times do I need to explain this?

If you can interpret "Shiva is supreme" to mean that the indweller Vishnu within Shiva is supreme, then I can interpret "Vishnu is supreme" to mean that the indweller Brahman within Vishnu is supreme.

Shiva is Supreme is taken to mean that the Supreme Being is 'Auspicious'. Mahadeva does not even come into the picture here.

We interpret some verses glorifying Agni, Indra, Mahadeva as glorifying the indweller. The Rig Veda clearly says that Rudra prays to the one located in the cave of his heart (see Sayana's translation I posted earlier).

Rig Veda 7.40.5 says Shiva gets his Rudra Strength by praying to Vishnu. So how can you interpret Shiva as the indweller of Vishnu, or as greater than Vishnu?

Narayana, as explained earlier cannot be name of deva Shiva due to rules in Panini's grammer and you seem to completely ignore all points I made earlier. There are other powerful irrefutable arguments.

No verse has been skipped by Vaishnavites in providing their proof - it is always interpreting properly. The interpretation always assumes that Brahman is Narayana (which cannot be refuted in anyway you want), and wherever there are references to Shiva or Indra or anyname that refers to Brahman, it is interpreted as Narayana - because all these names are applicable to Narayana, the supreme of all.

Narayana Suktam identifies Vishnu as an avatar of Narayana. Purusha Suktam identifies the Purusha as the consort of Sri.

If you interpret Vishnu as a name of Shiva, first of all, you will have to say that Vishnu is the 'all-pervading' aspect of Shiva. Which is ridiculous because it means Shiva is Brahman, but some amsa is doing the job of being all-pervading!!

'All-Pervading' itself is a trait of only Brahman. And that is Vishnu.

1) There is no verse that claims that Vishnu has a birth,or that He has an indweller.

2) Narayana is unambiguously identified as Brahman everywhere.

3) Purusha Suktam identifies Hree and Lakshmi as the consorts of the Purusha.

4) Vishnu is hailed as 'unborn' in Rig Veda.

5) 'Om tad Visnoh Paramapadam' signifies the supremacy of Vishnu.

6) Saying Shiva is Brahman needs us to override Satapatha Brahmana, the verse saying Isana-Mahadeva was born from Narayana, that Isana is absent during pralaya, that Lakshmi can make anyone Brahma or Rudra, that Rudra does not understand the actions of Savitr (showing that he is not omniscient).

In order to claim you can interpret Vishnu to mean Shiva, first you need to override the Purusha Suktam, identifying Lakshmipathi Narayana as supreme. And Narayana Suktam informs us,

'Narayana is Indra, Brahma, Shiva' (Sa Indra, Sa Brahma, Sa Shiva).

Note, it doesn't say Narayana is Vishnu, Indra, Brahma, Shiva. Hence, this verse signifies that while Indra, Brahma and Shiva are amsas, Narayana is Vishnu Himself.

If there is one verse, which casts doubt on Vishnu's supremacy

There is no verse that casts any doubt on Vishnu's Supremacy. Only Rudra's birth is mentioned. Tell me, where does any portion of the Veda indicate any sort of vulnerability on the part of Vishnu?

It is clear as crystal from Satapatha Brahmana and Mahanarayana Upanishad that Narayana as indweller of Brahma creates the Rudras. Hence, 'Rudra' is a post, a title, and a name that is originally the name of Brahman. Therefore, only Rudra is applied to Vishnu and not vice versa.

abrahma-bhuvanal lokah punar avartino 'rjuna

mam upetya tu kaunteya punar janma na vidyate (Bhagavad Gita 8.16)

From the highest world of Brahma down to the lowest, all are places of misery wherein repeated birth and death take place. But one who attains to My abode, O son of Kunti, never takes birth again.

So, Avinash, are you saying that Narayana is not Vishnu? That's funny, because it violates the basic rules of sanskrit. Have you ever heard of any scholar claiming that Narayana is not Vishnu?

Chandogya Upanishad further adds, 'The eyes of Brahman are like two newly blossomed lotuses, in the rays of the Sun'. Anyone can understand that 'Pundarikaksha' (lotus eyed) is a name of Vishnu. Furthermore, it says Brahman has two eyes, not three. Rules out Shiva.

Dark Warrior · May 18, 2008

Avinash says that I take verses that cast doubts on Shiva's Supremacy at face value. Let us examine the claim and shut him up once and for all.

In the Verses that say Shiva was born, the names 'Pasupati', 'Isana', 'Rudra' are clearly given (and Ganeshprasad's illogical arguments of this deva being Agni have been explained). If we assume the etymology here, it will mean,

1) Lord of animals (Pasupati) was born, and he had sins (papa).

2) The Ruler (Isana) was born, and he had sins.

And so on.

Now, tell me, does this mean Brahman was born and he had sins?

No. Hence, here, we HAVE to take the literal meaning, that Isana, Pasupati indicates a Deva. This Deva is Shiva and nobody else.

Now, another verse says,

Rudra gets his Rudra Strength from Vishnu. (Rig Veda 7.40.5)

According to Avinash, if we take this to mean,

'The destroyer of misery' gets his power to destroy misery from Vishnu.

This doesn't make sense. Why should someone who is already named 'Destroyer of Misery' get the power to destroy misery from someone else?

So, again, we literally have to interpret Rudra as a deva who gets his powers from Vishnu. And since this deva is already mentioned to have a birth, its clear now.

Consider another verse that denigrates Rudra,

'eko nArAyaNa AsIt.h na brahmA na IshAnaH

'Only Narayana existed, and neither Brahma nor Isana were present'.

We know Narayana is Brahman.

Now, let us assume that this 'Isana' is not Shiva. 'Isana' means 'Ruler'. Then we have,

'Only Narayana existed, and neither Brahma nor the Ruler were present'.

I'd like Avinash to kindly use his brains here. Does this sentence make sense?

Isana is mentioned to be the foremost of 11 Rudras, ie, Sankara. Hence, once again, the literal meaning is to be taken.

However, in verses saying 'Rudra is Supreme', or 'Shiva is Supreme' there is no ambiguity. Since it is proven that Mahadeva is not supreme, one can interpret it as, 'Supreme one is auspicious' or 'The destroyer of misery is Supreme'.

In any case, Mahanarayana Upanishad clears all doubts.

Avinash, when you argue, make sure you have substance, and verify that you are arguing sensibly. Otherwise, there is a chance that you will be embarassed. So far, the great debators who have disagreed with me are only those who quote tamasic puranas and Ramacharitramanasa as Pramana.

Avinash · May 18, 2008

You are saying that Rudra is common noun and Narayana is proper noun. You claim that Shaiva Acharyas have no problem accepting this.

Did any Shaiva Acharyas say that Narayana is a proper noun? When Vaishnava Acharyas called Narayana as proper noun, then was there any Shaiva Acharya to debate? It is also possible that there was no Shaiva Acharya present there to debate. It does not mean that Shaiva Acharyas accept this. As an example, if I write something on Darwin's theory here and no Darwinian is here to debate on this, it does not mean that Darwinians have accepted whatever I wrote.

Dark Warrior · May 18, 2008

You are saying that Rudra is common noun and Narayana is proper noun. You claim that Shaiva Acharyas have no problem accepting this.
Did any Shaiva Acharyas say that Narayana is a proper noun? When Vaishnava Acharyas called Narayana as proper noun, then was there any Shaiva Acharya to debate? It is also possible that there was no Shaiva Acharya present there to debate. It does not mean that Shaiva Acharyas accept this. As an example, if I write something on Darwin's theory here and no Darwinian is here to debate on this, it does not mean that Darwinians have accepted whatever I wrote.

Dude, your ignorance is astonishing.

You think Vaishnava acharyas introduced the rule that Narayana is a proper noun?

ITS A LAW OF SANSKRIT. NOBODY CAN FLOUT IT. JUST LIKE THE WORD 'CLEVER' IS AN ADJECTIVE IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, THIS IS ALSO A LAW IN SANSKRIT LANGUAGE. NOBODY CREATED IT.

Good Lord, you are completely hopeless. What do you think, Vaishnavas invented the sanskrit language and deliberately linked Narayana to Vishnu?

'NArAyaNa', according to proper sanskrit, is a monopoly of Vishnu. The final 'Na' makes it a monopoly as per Panini Sutra:

'pUrvapadAt samgyAyAm agaH'

Similar is the word 'rAmAyaNa' which will refer only to the story about Lord Rama and not that of any other Rama.

Brahma Sutras confirm it.

No Shaiva can ever flout it, it is a basic rule of Vedanta. So, they ignore it altogether. Very convienient. It renders all your arguments invalid.

The ignorance of Avinash is there for all to see.

Rig Veda 7.099.02

ná te viSNo jaáyamaano ná jaató déva mahimnáH páram ántam aapa

úd astabhnaa naákam RSvám bRhántaM daadhártha praáciiM kakúbham pRthivyaáH

"No being that is or that has been born(includes Shiva or Rudra), divine Vis.n.u, has attained the utmost limit of your magnitude by which you have upheld the vast and beautiful heaven, and sustained the eastern horizon of the earth."

So no more useless deliberations upon this topic. Learn Brahma Sutras first and then argue about Brahman. Without knowing anything about the characteristics of Brahman, doing arguments upon this topic is just like building storeys upon no foundation.

"nArAyaNAt param nAsti, na nArAyaNa samAnam"

Avinash · May 18, 2008

I do not agree with you when you say that Narayana cannot be used for anyone except Vishnu. Suppose a person wants to keep his child's name as Narayana, then it is not against any rule of Sanskrit. Consider the story of Ajamila, whose son's name was Narayana. But his son was not Vishnu.

Dark Warrior · May 18, 2008

I could name anyone Rudra and he won't become Rudra. What sort of stupid comparison is this?

This reveals that you know nothing about Sanskrit or Vedanta. What is the purpose of arguing?

Naming has nothing to do with this. Just like one can say two words 'Repetitive' and 'Redundant' in English language have the same meaning, 'Narayana' is interlinked with Vishnu.

And Veda affirms this by saying,

Eko ha vai Naaraayana Na brahma nesaanaha" and "Apahatapaapma Divyo devaha Eko Naaraayana:"

There was only Narayana, no Brahma, no Shiva. This Narayana is free from defects.

It doesn't say, there was no Vishnu. Only Brahma and Shiva. Veda follows the rules of grammar.

That the term "Naaraayana" is a particular noun identifying the Lord of Goddess Lakshmi and Bhoomi is given in Purusha Suktam"Hereeshca Te Lakshmischa Patniyow" in Veda.

Vishnu is the Lord of Lakshmi and Bhu Devi. So shut it. Without a proper knowledge of sanskrit, a language which has been used by so many Vedantins for many years, you have the nerve to post your stupid opinions.

EDIT: Just one question, Avinash. You don't agree to this, huh? Exactly what change do you think this will make to the sanskrit language?

I think this is pretty much the zenith of sentiment. The laws of sanskrit, enforced by the language itself say something. This guy here says that he does not accept it because he 'disagrees'. I don't really think it can get any worse. No sense arguing with people who are so unaware of philosophy, debating skills and proper use of words.

Stick to your 'Shiva Purana'. That's about all you can do. (I have edited offensive words for Mod's sake).

Avinash · May 18, 2008

I could name anyone Rudra and he won't become Rudra. What sort of stupid comparison is this?

This reveals that you know nothing about Sanskrit or Vedanta. What is the purpose of arguing?

Naming has nothing to do with this.

That is exactly what I am also saying. Who is called by what name has nothing to do with Sanskrit grammar. Therefore, if somebody other than Vishnu is called as Narayana, then it is not against Sanskrit grammar.

Dark Warrior · May 18, 2008

That is exactly what I am also saying. Who is called by what name has nothing to do with Sanskrit grammar. Therefore, if somebody other than Vishnu is called as Narayana, then it is not against Sanskrit grammar.

Good. Then say that the meaning of 'Repetitive' is 'Slow' or 'Fast'.

Avinash, I suspect you are simply arguing for fun. In which case, you are classed as a prize jackass.

Narayana is all pervading. Vishnu also means all pervading. A diety can give His auspiciousness to another deity and still remain auspicious. But no deity can give His all-pervading power to another deity. Plus, there cannot be two all-pervading deities.

That Vishnu is Narayana is proven by Shruti and by Panini's Grammar. There is no mention of Vishnu being born or created by Narayana. Both Brahma and Shiva are mentioned to have sprung from Narayana. Purusha Suktam identifies Narayana as Lord of Lakshmi. Narayana is also identified as the 'Being on the Ocean' in Mahanarayana Upanishad (quoted by Sri Ramanujar), and is mentioned to have no-one above Him. Narayana Suktam identifies Vasudeva and Vishnu (Vyuhas) as avatars.

I suggest you consult Sanskrit Pundits. But if you are arguing just for fun and are really a Vaishnava (as you claimed)...well done, you have committed apachara to Vishnu.

If you are really a zealous nitwit without a knowledge of grammar, I suggest you refer scholars for this.

Avinash · May 18, 2008

I have been calling Vishnu as supreme since even before I had heard the words Vaishnava, Shaiva etc. When I was 8 year old (I was in 4th std. then), then people nearby used to ask me to tell story of Rama. I had very little knowledge of Ramayana at that time. I had not read complete Ramayana, but just some parts from here and there. But those people used to love hearing Ramayana from me (may be because I was a child. )

I was aware that Vishnu had taken the birth as Rama. I considered Vishnu as supreme. It continued even as I grew older.

I was under impression that all Hindus consider Vishnu as supreme.

I remember that a few times, some of my friends (of roughly same age as me) called Shiva as supreme. But I thought that the person saying so was misinformed.

One day my father told me the story of the fight between Vishnu and Brahma on who is supreme. He told me how Lord Shiva took a form, which looked like pillar. Even after that story, I continued to call Vishnu as supreme because my father ended the story by saying that Brahma accepted Vishnu as greater.

Later I read the same story in a magazine. The story was published on the occasion of Shivaratri. In that it was written that both Brahma and Vishnu accepted Shiva as supreme. I was surprised. But I thought that the people who wrote the story wrote it wrongly. I thought that may be it is Shivaratri, so they have written like this. I was fully convinced that this story could not be from any shastra.

As I continued to grow older, I read lots of stories from Puranas. I intentionally chose stories of Vishnu (or His incarnation). In the mean time, some TV serials (like Om Namah Shivaya) showed Shiva as supreme. But I was quick to point out that it was wrong.

Then one day, I thouht of reading Shiva Purana to see what is written in it. I found that Shiva Purana called Shiva as supreme. Since this was shastra, I could not reject it straightaway. Later when I studied further on this, then I found that there were lots of other places where Shastras called Shiva as supreme. But, at the same time, there are lots of places where Vishnu is called as supreme.

I still call Vishnu as supreme, but I think it is because of my habit since my childhood days. After all, my belief need not be the same as shastra.

Therefore, just because, since childhood days, I have been believing Vishnu to be supreme and all others, including Shiva as lower than Vishnu, it does not mean that Shastras also say the same.

Is Lord Shiva a demi-god?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Support the Ashram

Join Groups

Top Downloads