Is Lord Shiva a demi-god?

[Dark Warrior]

(EDIT) The story speaks for itself.

 

Vishnu is supreme as per sastra. If you want to flout Panini's grammar, which was followed by all Vedantins in their commentaries on the Prasthna Trayam, be my guest, as sanskrit certainly doesn't depend on your ridiculous opinions and it exposes your ignorance. I couldn't care less about what you believe or what you don't believe.

[Avinash]

 

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

Read my post again to which you gave the above reply. I used the word Brahman and not Mahadeva or Shiva.

I agree with you that Shruti cannot contradict itself (unless of course, some part of Shruti is a later day interpolation). Therefore, I agree with you when you say that if two verses of Shruti seem to contradict each other, then we should interpret each other in such a way that they are consistent.

Somewhere Shruti says that Vishnu is supreme and somewhere it says that Rudra is supreme. You are reconciling these by saying that Rudra is supreme means that Vishnu dwelling within Rudra is supreme.

There is another way: - Both Rudra and Vishnu are manifestations of Brahman. Rudra is supreme means that Brahman is supreme and Vishnu is supreme also means that Brahman is supreme. Shruti glorifies different aspects of Brahman.

 

I do not agree that as per Sanskrit grammar, Lord Shiva cannot be called as Vishnu. I am not disputing what Panini saied. Panini was a Sanskrit expert. But I disagree with Vaishnava Acharyas who say that Lord Shiva cannot be called as Vishnu according to Sanskrit grammar.

[Dark Warrior]

 

Read my post again to which you gave the above reply. I used the word Brahman and not Mahadeva or Shiva.

I agree with you that Shruti cannot contradict itself (unless of course, some part of Shruti is a later day interpolation). Therefore, I agree with you when you say that if two verses of Shruti seem to contradict each other, then we should interpret each other in such a way that they are consistent.

Somewhere Shruti says that Vishnu is supreme and somewhere it says that Rudra is supreme. You are reconciling these by saying that Rudra is supreme means that Vishnu dwelling within Rudra is supreme.

There is another way: - Both Rudra and Vishnu are manifestations of Brahman. Rudra is supreme means that Brahman is supreme and Vishnu is supreme also means that Brahman is supreme. Shruti glorifies different aspects of Brahman.

 

Then, explain the verses that say Isana is absent during pralaya, that Rudra gets his strength from Vishnu, the Shathapatha Brahmana verses detailing the birth of Rudra, the verses saying Lakshmi makes whoever she wants as Rudra and Brahma, and the verses that say Rudra cannot understand the actions of savitr.

 

Your stupidity also ignores the glaring verses that say Rudra was born from Narayana in Mahanarayana Upanishad, whereas, Vishnu's birth is not mentioned. Your ignorance also tends to gloss over the fact that Purusha Suktam calls the Purusha as Lakshmipathi.

 

Rudra gets his strength from Vishnu. Rig Veda 7.40.5 shows Rudra asking for a boon from Vishnu.

 

Thus, both cannot be equal. Hence, one of them is subordinate. Shruti identifies Vishnu as Narayana.

 

Narayana Suktam says, 'Narayana is Brahma, Siva, Indra'. This means that Brahma, Shiva and Indra are amsas, endowed with powers of Brahman (refer Sayana's commentary). If Shiva=Vishnu, and Narayana was a distinct entity, the verse should have said 'Narayana is Brahma, Shiva, Vishnu, Indra'.

 

However, Narayana Suktam identifies Vishnu with Narayana.

 

 

I do not agree that as per Sanskrit grammar, Lord Shiva cannot be called as Vishnu. I am not disputing what Panini saied. Panini was a Sanskrit expert.

 

Panini says Shiva cannot be a name of Narayana. NAkaara in Narayana pertains to Vishnu alone.

 

You do not dispute what Panini said, and you disagree with Vaishnava acharyas who simply followed Panini's rules? Brilliant.

 

Even common sense explains that there cannot be an amsa of Brahman who is all-pervading. How can Brahman give his all-pervasive power to an 'aspect'? When an entity is all-pervading, it can only be Brahman and nothing else.

 

 

But I disagree with Vaishnava Acharyas who say that Lord Shiva cannot be called as Vishnu according to Sanskrit grammar.

 

Appaya Dikshitar was a saivite who tried to prove Shiva=Vishnu. He failed due to the NAkaara factor alone, and admits it as well. And how many times do I have to pound it into your dumb head that Vaishnava acharyas do not say this, rather Panini himself says so? It violates basic sanskrit grammar.

 

Sri Ramanujacharya proves gramatically that Shiva cannot be Brahman. Sri Madhvacharya follows an entirely different approach, and he too proves that Narayana is Vishnu.

 

Who made you an authority? Your stupid life history shows that you regard Shiva Purana, Newspapers and TV Serials as pramana.

[Avinash]

I never considered newspapers and TV serials as pramana. As I wrote very clearly, even on seeing Shiva mentioned as supreme in magazines and TV serials, I continued to think Vishnu as supreme. However, I do give importance to Shiva Purana and other scriptures. Your argument is that Ved Vyas knew that what he was writing in tamasic Puranas was wrong and still he wrote it. And you say that it was for good purpose. According to you, on purpose telling lies and misleading people is for good purpose.

[Dark Warrior]

 

I never considered newspapers and TV serials as pramana. As I wrote very clearly, even on seeing Shiva mentioned as supreme in magazines and TV serials, I continued to think Vishnu as supreme. However, I do give importance to Shiva Purana and other scriptures. Your argument is that Ved Vyas knew that what he was writing in tamasic Puranas was wrong and still he wrote it. And you say that it was for good purpose. According to you, on purpose telling lies and misleading people is for good purpose.

 

First of all, you are a very confused soul. Let me clarify - You don't believe Vishnu is supreme. Rather, you are an average ignorant hindu, with Vishnu as Ishta Devata. Anyone who says Vishnu is Supreme should accept Sastra. You don't know one kalyana guna of Brahman.

 

Not just one way. Adi Sankara and Sayana take one approach, Sri Ramanujar adopts another approach and Madhva takes yet another entirely different approach. And all of them end up with the same result, that Sri Hari is Supreme.

 

Shiva Purana is not pramana. So stop bleating about it. I am tired of talking about Tamasic Puranas, its all these people can come up with.

 

EDIT: I think I have done enough here. These people are not really going to change, so there's no point in me debating with them. The sole reason I debated with them was to ensure that neutral people looking for information about our tradition will not be mislead by these misinformed bozos. I think that's the greatest damage that these hindus will cause.

 

Vishnu Sarvottama is firmly endorsed by the Veda. I don't care if you accept it or not. Without reading Vaishnava literature and giving it a sincere try, posing one ridiculous question after another is the main object of these people. In any case, I am out of this thread.

[guliaditya]

 

Not just one way. Adi Sankara and Sayana take one approach, Sri Ramanujar adopts another approach and Madhva takes yet another entirely different approach. And all of them end up with the same result, that Sri Hari is Supreme.

 

This is the problem.Non acceptance of scriptures, great acharyas leads to confusion.Lord Narayana is supreme & worship HIM only with full faith & devotion is the conclusion of all the scriptures.Where is the point of debate??

Let us all put an end to this debate & rather discuss divya lilla of Sreeman Narayana.

 

Pranaam

[Avinash]

You call Bhagavatam as pramana. In Bhagavatam, it is written that devas called lord Shiva as supreme. You interpret it to mean that Vishnu dwelling within Shiva is supreme. When asked why devas did not go directly to Vishnu, then you argue that one should go to guru.

I agree that one should approach God through guru. But if God is in front of me, then there is nothing wrong in talking to God directly. Vishnu was standing nearby. The devas could have easily talked to Vishnu.

In Rajasuya yajna, when Sahdev suggested that Krishna should be worshipped, then Yudhisthir worshipped Krishna. He did not call Dronacharya or Krpacharya as supreme.

And who drank the poison? Did Lord Shiva or did Lord Vishnu dwelling within Lord Shiva drink the poison?

[guliaditya]

 

You call Bhagavatam as pramana. In Bhagavatam, it is written that devas called lord Shiva as supreme. You interpret it to mean that Vishnu dwelling within Shiva is supreme.

 

In the same Bhagavatam Lord Shiva says that he doesn't know Lord Narayana.How it is possible ??? Krishna tells in Gita that nobody knows HIM but he know everybody.Devas in their capacity are calling Lord Shiva as supreme.Lord Shiva knows his position very well & in his position he considers Lord Narayana as supreme.Hence reconciliation is a must.Just by reading 2-3 sentences we can't say that Lord Shiva is also supreme.

 

There is no truth greater than Lord Narayana.

Anyway keep on debating.

 

Pranaam.

[Avinash]

The gods were talking to Shiva. They were referring to him in second person and calling him supreme. Vishnu was nearby. If they had to pray to Vishnu, they could have done that. It was Shiva and not Vishnu who drank the poison on the request of gods. In spite of this, if somebody claims that the gods were praying to Vishnu dwelling within Shiva, then it is too much of strech of imagination. The claim that gods went to Shiva because Shiva is their guru holds no water. Guru is needed to approach God. When God is nearby, then there is nothing wrong in talking to God. Yudhisthir worshipped Krsna. He did not call Dronacharya or Kripacharya as supreme thinking that people will know he was calling Vishnu inside Drona or Kripa as supreme.

Yes, there should be reconciliation, but not by forcibly interpreting verses to support one's point of view. We can say that both Vishnu and Shiva are different aspects of supreme Brahman.

You are saying that Shiva called Vishnu as greater. So, what? In Shiva Purana, Vishnu calls Shiva as greater. Do not say that Shiva Purana is tamasic and hence not pramana. What did Ved Vyas gain by intentionally writing wrong things? If you believe that he can on purpose lie and mislead people, then how can you have trust in other works of his? How can you be sure that what he has written in sattvik puranas is correct. If he can write so many lies in tamasic puranas, then he could write lies in sattvik puranas also.

Talking about Shruti, it is clearly written in Shvetashvatara Upanishad that Shiva is supreme. Those who claim that Shiva is a jiva argue that this upanishad calls Vishnu by the name of Rudra. Again, too much of strech of imagination!

Let us see some verses from the upanishad: -

"3.2 For there is one Rudra only, they do not allow a second, who rules all the worlds by his powers. He stands behind all persons, and after having created all worlds he, the protector, rolls it up at the end of time."

When a verse says that there was only Narayan, one without a second, then you say that there was Lord Vishnu, one without a second. You may claim that Lord Vishnu can be called as Rudra but, Lord Shiva i.e. Mahadev cannot be called as Vishnu according to Sanskrit grammar. But, let us see verse 3.11 of Shvetashvatara Upanishad: -

"3.11. That Bhagavat exists in the faces, the heads, the necks of all, he dwells in the cave (of the heart) of all beings, he is all-pervading, therefore he is the omnipresent Shiva."

This verse uses the words omnipresent Shiva. You may claim that the word Shiva here refers to Lord Vishnu. But, we know that the word Vishnu etymologically means omnipresent. This verse uses the term "omnipresent Shiva". This means that etymologically there is no contradiction between the words Vishnu (omnipesent) and Shiva. I agree that Lord Vishnu can be called as Shiva. But we know that Lord Mahadev is also called as Shiva. Since, the verse uses omnipresent (i.e. Vishnu) and Shiva together, there cannot be anything etymologically wrong if it is said that Lord Mahadev is omnipresent.

If I say that Lord Shankar is omnipresent, then how does it violate any rule of Sanskrit grammar?

Consider verses 3.5 and 3.6: -

"5. O Rudra, thou dweller in the mountains, look upon us with that most blessed form of thine which is auspicious, not terrible, and reveals no evil!"

"6. O lord of the mountains, make lucky that arrow which thou, a dweller in the mountains, holdest in thy hand to shoot. Do not hurt man or beast!"

In these verses, Rudra is called as "dweller in the mountains" and "lord of the mountains". It is well known that Lord Shiva dwells in the mountains (Kailash). Of course, Lord Vishnu also dwells there being omnipresent. But Shvetavashtra Upanishad uses only those titles for Rudra, which are almost always used for Lord Shiva. But, still claiming that these titles are used for Lord Vishnu in the upanishad is forcibly proving one's point.

[Avinash]

Let me add that Shiva Purana lists 1008 names of Lord Shiva, in which the name "Vishnu" is included. You may argue that Shiva Purana is tamasic, and therefore, does not contain correct information. But here I am not talking about the correctness of information but about the usage of Sanskrit grammar.

Take an analogy. Suppose that I make the following statement: -

"I am a doctor."

The above statement is a lie. But it uses English grammar correctly. But if you say that as per Sanskrit grammar, the title "Vishnu" cannot be used for Lord Shiva, then you are trying to say that Shiva Purana uses Sanskrit grammar incorrectly.

I know you want to say that Ved Vyas has given incorrect statements in Shiva Purana. But, do you want to say that he has used Sanskrit grammar incorrectly in this Purana? As I explained above by giving an example, there is diffrence between a statement being factually incorrect and the statement being grammatically incorrect.

[Dark Warrior]

Post Deleted by Admin5

[Dark Warrior]

Post Deleted by Admin5

[Dark Warrior]

Post Deleted by Admin5

[kimfelix]

Dark Warrior, as you say the debate has more or less concluded itself and as is to be expected neither side has succeeded in convincing the other. I have read all of your posts carefully and although I can understand and appreciate the points you make, my views are unchanged. I am not convinced that all Shaiva passages in the Mahabharata are interpolations as they appear in every recension and every full manuscript. And I found your objections to the BORI edition of the text impossible to understand as it is the only text that exists. Secondly, the explanation that where the Shvetashvatara Upanishad mentions Rudra it really means Vishnu does not convince me. And finally the view that the Shiva Purana is Tamasic does not match my experience of studying the text.

 

In another post you refer to our friend Avinash as an asura who is tamasic. However, I have to say that it is yourself who gives evidence of the influence of the lower gunas through the vulgarity of your speech and your constant recourse to insults. The type language you use and your abusive mode of discussion is not a sign of Sattva but of Tamas and at best Rajas. I have an acquaintance from your own Sri Vaishnava tradition who I admire very much for his scholarship, his erudite Sanskrit learning and also his consistently Sattvic demeanour. I have had several discussions with him on subjects similar to the one covered here and at all times he has been a perfect gentlemen. He quite appreciates the other point of view and makes his points in a most courteous and learned manner. The result is that one is left with admiration for the tradition he represents. Vulgarity and rudeness are never admirable qualities and referring to someone as a 'bloody moron' suggests that the speaker is rather ill-bred. I hope you won't find this paragraph irritating or offensive, but I do feel it is the most important advice that has appeared on this thread. I have no desire at all to convert you from your views but I don't think you bring honour or prestige to your tradition by consistent vulgarity. All the best.

[Avinash]

 

Where did I say Vishnu cannot be called Rudra? He can.

Read my message again. I never said that you said Vishnu cannot be called as Rudra. I know you said that He can. To repeat what I wrote: -

 

"You may claim that Lord Vishnu can be called as Rudra but, Lord Shiva i.e. Mahadev cannot be called as Vishnu according to Sanskrit grammar."

[Dark Warrior]

Post Deleted by Admin5

[Dark Warrior]

 

Read my message again. I never said that you said Vishnu cannot be called as Rudra. I know you said that He can. To repeat what I wrote: -

 

"You may claim that Lord Vishnu can be called as Rudra but, Lord Shiva i.e. Mahadev cannot be called as Vishnu according to Sanskrit grammar."

 

No, I said, 'NarayaNa, the name can NEVER become a name of Shiva'.

 

Shiva, Indra, Agni, etc. can be ascribed to NarayaNa, but not vice versa.

 

Vishnu is identified as NarayaNa. Mahadeva is identified as a part of NarayaNa's creation. So, they are not same. Easy as pie.

 

Let's see, according to Kimfelix and Avinash, our tradition presents mutually contradictory texts. So, we must accept that we don't really know what our rishis meant, and most of it is probably man made and not real.

 

According to Vaishnavas, everything is consistent and can be made whole easily. Even the guna classification is acceptable.

 

Any sane person would know which view is right. I was patient in the beginning, but when someone keeps repeating the same thing, it gets annoying.

[Avinash]

 

I see. Then why did Sri Hari delude as Buddha and Mohini?

Buddha wanted to stop people from killing animals in the name of religion. Mohini wanted to give nectar to gods because, if demons has drunk it, then being of evil nature, they would have created havoc.

 

 

Because asuras like Avinash, who are tamasic in nature, are not cleansed of Karmas to understand Hari.

You are saying that Vishnu does not want tamasic people to be cleansed of karmas. In other words, if somebody is tamasic, Vishnu wants him to remain tamsic. Does not sound like a good God. Even if it is believed, as you say that, tamasic Puranas were written for people like me, then you should be happy that I am giving importance to tamasic Puranas also (together with other Puranas). After all, the purpose of tamasic Puranas is getting served.

[Dark Warrior]

 

Buddha wanted to stop people from killing animals in the name of religion. Mohini wanted to give nectar to gods because, if demons has drunk it, then being of evil nature, they would have created havoc.

 

So, why couldn't Krishna simply show Himself to these people, tell them 'I am god, don't kill'?

 

Because Karma is AnAdi. And the Lord is the neutral arbitrator. He does not refrain from imposing punishments, but at the same time, He tries to make it easier.

 

 

 

You are saying that Vishnu does not want tamasic people to be cleansed of karmas. In other words, if somebody is tamasic, Vishnu wants him to remain tamsic. Does not sound like a good God. Even if it is believed, as you say that, tamasic Puranas were written for people like me, then you should be happy that I am giving importance to tamasic Puranas also (together with other Puranas). After all, the purpose of tamasic Puranas is getting served.

 

There are tamasic people in this world. They, owing to karma, cannot understand the truth. It is explained in Gita, the nature of different religions.

 

Lord gives different religions to help them on their way. Shiva will clean his devotees of tamas/rajas and prepare them for bhakti to Hari. That being said, I don't claim to be sattvik either. Everyone has tamo and rajo guna.

 

And certainly, I can see that it is working on you. I only argue so that you don't spread your ridiculous views. Plus, you torture the Veda without any knowledge. It is a sin to tamper with apaurusheya shruti without any jnana.

[Avinash]

 

Both of you need to first explain the verses that denigrates Rudra.

I can say that you first need to explain the verses that glorify Rudra as supreme. You are explaining by saying that the word Rudra is used for Lord Vishnu in these verses. And the verses, which calls Rudra as sinful, refers to Lord Mahadev. I agree that the same word can have different meanings. But the context also must be different. If the word Rudra is used in two places in the same context, then it is quite logical to think that the meaning in the two places is the same.

The verse of Shvetashavara upanishad, which calls Rudra as supreme and the verses, which call Rudra as "lord of the mountains" are in the same context. Therefore, if Rudra here refers to Lord Vishnu, it means that Lord Vishnu is referred to as "Lord of the mountains". But, it is known that Lord Mahadev is called as the Lord of the mountains, and mountain here is Kailash.

Of course, it is quite possible to call Lord Vishnu also as Lord of the mountains. Being omnipresent, He exists everywhere including mountains. But, usually, the title "Lord of the mountains" refers to Lord Shankara.

[Dark Warrior]

 

I can say that you first need to explain the verses that glorify Rudra as supreme. You are explaining by saying that the word Rudra is used for Lord Vishnu in these verses. And the verses, which calls Rudra as sinful, refers to Lord Mahadev. I agree that the same word can have different meanings. But the context also must be different. If the word Rudra is used in two places in the same context, then it is quite logical to think that the meaning in the two places is the same.

 

I agree. Good. But in the case of Rig Veda and Satapatha Brahmana, specifically, Rudra is referred to as a Deva. And in Satapatha Brahmana, explicit reference to a deva named 'Pasupati', 'Mahadeva', 'Ugra' and 'Rudra' are given.

 

Furthermore, this sinful Kumara is mentioned to have a son named Skanda.

 

 

The verse of Shvetashavara upanishad, which calls Rudra as supreme and the verses, which call Rudra as "lord of the mountains" are in the same context. Therefore, if Rudra here refers to Lord Vishnu, it means that Lord Vishnu is referred to as "Lord of the mountains". But, it is known that Lord Mahadev is called as the Lord of the mountains, and mountain here is Kailash.

 

And did I deny that?

 

In places where Veda simply says, 'Shiva is Supreme' without specifying names of Mahadeva like 'Isana', 'Pasupati', etc....'Shiva' simply means auspicious.

 

You are quite right that in this context, Rudra pertains to Mahadeva. And yes, we agree that Mahadeva is being referred to as supreme.

 

Now,

 

1) We know that Mahadeva had a birth, and called himself sinful. And other pramanas that say he is a jiva.

 

2) Here, it praises Shiva as Brahman.

 

So, we turn to alternate pramanas,

 

1) Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, which says Brahman has all jivas/devas/world as His body.

 

Now, when you call me 'Dark Warrior', you refer to my soul and body. But in reality, it is my soul which responds. Similarly, we take it to mean that 'Rudra' here pertains to the soul of Rudra, ie Vishnu.

 

Another explanation is also possible - All jivas are part of Vishnu's body. In fact, He gets the name 'Kesava' because Ka (Brahma) and Isa (Shiva) are His limbs. So, think - you say, this woman has beautiful hair. True, the hair is beautiful, but who is really responsible for keeping it beautiful? The woman only.

 

So, praise goes to the woman, rather than the hair. And in Svet. Up, praise goes to Vishnu.

 

Similarly, there are verses calling Agni, Vayu, Indra, Chandra, Prajapati, Brahma, etc. as Supreme. All these are explained thusly.

 

 

 

Of course, it is quite possible to call Lord Vishnu also as Lord of the mountains. Being omnipresent, He exists everywhere including mountains. But, usually, the title "Lord of the mountains" refers to Lord Shankara.

 

 

To sum up - verses that say 'Rudra is supreme' or 'Shiva is supreme' without pertaining to any description simply means 'Destroyer of Misery/Auspicious One is Supreme'. Verses that glorify the 3 eyed Mahadeva and other devas pertain to Vishnu, going by the body/soul concept.

 

Vishnu is identified as Para Brahman, Sriman NarayaNa.

[Avinash]

I know Sanskrit to some extent. Based on that knowledge, I agree that as per Sanskrit grammar, narayaNa (with second N as murdhanya N) refers to a specific person.

 

 

Similarly, we take it to mean that 'Rudra' here pertains to the soul of Rudra, ie Vishnu.

If you read my earlier posts, I have clearly written that calling Rudra is an aspect of Supreme Brahman. Therefore, calling Rudra as Supreme means that Brahman is supreme. I also wrote in another post that calling Rudra as supreme means that Brahman dwelling within Rudra is supreme. I do not remember whether in those posts I used the word "Rudra" or "Mahadev", but it does not matter because the meaning is the same.

I am saying that it is Brahman within Rudra. You agree with this. But you also say that it is Vishnu dwelling within Rudra. Combining the two statements means that the word Brahman and Vishnu are synonyms. Vishnu means all pervading one. Therefore, it is perfectly all right to say that Brahman is Vishnu i.e. Brahman is all pervading. But, the problem I am facing in explaining my point is because there are so many aspects of Vishnu. Let me talk about Lord Vishnu, who lives in Vaikunth Dham with Laxmi or in ocean of milk, and who takes incarnations as Rama, Krishna etc.

So, one meaning of Vishnu is all-pervading. Another meaning is Lord Vishnu (of the trinity). If it is proved that Shruti uses these two words as synonyms, then your point is established.

But, there is another way to look at it: -

Rudra is supreme means that Brahman is supreme. Since Brahman is Vishnu i.e. all pervading, it means that Vishnu (i.e. all pervading Brahman) is supreme. Here, we both agree.

But now consider the statement: -

Lord Vishnu (of the trinity) is supreme. It can have two meanings. One meaning is that Lord Vishnu is same as Brahman. This is what you are saying.

However, there is yet another meaning: -

Vishnu dwelling within Vishnu is supreme. In this sentence, I am using the first Vishnu to mean Brahman, who is all pervading and the second Vishnu to mean Lord Vishnu of the trinity. In other words, Brahman dwelling within Lord Vishnu (of the trinity) is supreme. If you read my previous posts, you will find that earlier also I said the same.

[Avinash]

We can also say: -

Shiva is supreme means that

Shiva within Shiva is supreme.

Here, first Shiva means all auspicious supreme Brahman and second Shiva means Lord Mahadev.

[kimfelix]

Dark Warrior, it does matter what type of person you are in terms of a debate because your personal qualities are a reflection of the beliefs you hold. It is an obvious assumption to make that the values you espouse make you the person you are; this is what Krishna says in 17.3. If I see that a person of a specific belief system is vulgar, rude and ill-mannered then it must reflect on the belief system he adheres to. As Krishna says, we are what our faith makes us. And if our faith has made us rajasic or tamasic in conduct then it reflects on those values. Rudeness is not usually a sign of being spiritually enlighened. Just the opposite.

 

And by the way, the reference to Shiva in 11.15 is very, very dubious. It is not the obvious meaning of the verse and one might indeed consider why Shiva is not present within the vishva-rupa.

[Avinash]

Kimfelix,

BG 11.15 contains the word isam. Prabhupada translates it to mean Lord Shiva. Are you thinking of some other translation? If so, what is it?