Is Lord Shiva a demi-god?

[Dark Warrior]

Hoo boy. He never gives up.

 

1) I speak for Sri Vaishnavism. Each Vaishnava sect has its own theology. Use your brains to find out which one is closest to Vedic truths, as there is always squabbling.

 

2) Brahma Samhita is not considered authentic by any Vaishnava Sampradaya except the Gaudiya Vaishnavas. The Gaudiyas believe that it was 'recovered' by Sri Chaitanya.

 

The other Sampradayas (Sri, Madhva, Nimbarka, etc.) regard it as a 15th century invention by a Gaudiya Vaishnava. This is because the Brahma Samhita is not consistent with the rest of the Vedas, and contradicts the original vedic texts heavily.

 

However, it is a good devotional work.

 

When you want to indulge in debate, use pramanas from sources accepted by EVERYONE. Which means - 4 Vedas, Upanishads, Puranas (Vishnu and Bhagavata preferably) and Ithihasas.

 

3) Again, stop posting purports from Srila Prabhupada. Understand that 'pramana' means any quote from an authoritative text, and not just a translation by an acharya.

 

 

4) STOP POSTING TRANSLATIONS ALONE. IT IS NOT PRAMANA.

 

 

 

But let us analyse the Bhagavatam verse 8.12.4

 

śrī-mahādevauvāca

deva-deva jagad-vyāpiñ

jagad-īśa jagan-maya

sarveṣāmapibhāvānāḿ

tvamātmā hetur īśvaraḥ

 

mahādevaḥuvāca — Lord Śiva (Mahādeva) said; deva-deva — O best demigod among the demigods; jagat-vyāpin — O all-pervading Lord; jagat-īśa — O master of the universe; jagat-maya — O my Lord, who are transformed by Your energy into this creation; sarveṣāmapi — all kinds of; bhāvānām — situations; tvam — You; ātmā — the moving force; hetuḥ — because of this; īśvaraḥ — the Supreme Lord, Parameśvara.

 

Srila Prabhupada makes a few mistakes here.

 

Number 1, Deva Deva does not mean 'Best demigod among demigods'. It means, 'Lord of Devas', or 'Supreme Deity'. Hence, Vishnu is not being addressed as 'Demigod leader', but as 'Supreme Lord' here.

 

Number 2, nowhere in this verse is 'Guna Avatar' mentioned. Yet, Srila Prabhupada mentions it in his translation.

 

So conclusion - The above verse shows Mahadeva calling Vishnu as 'Supreme Lord'. Hence, Vishnu is not an avatar.

 

And yes, there are certainly stories that Rudra came from Brahma's or Narayana's forehead. This is reconciled as below:

 

In the Vedas, it says Narayana meditated, and Rudra emerged from His forehead. This is explained as follows.

 

- First, Brahma begets a Son. He is named Rudra.

 

- Next, Vedas say that Rudra got his strength by meditating on Vishnu. So, it means that Rudra, the new-born, begins tapas.

 

- Lord Narayana, pleased with tapas of the jiva named Rudra, meditates and this results in an avatar of Vishnu named Sankarshana - Rudra (Destroyer) emerging from His forehead.

 

- Sankarshana confers the destructive powers to Rudra. So, understand, Rudra is the Jiva. Sankarshana is the avatar. But the Veda calls both the jiva and the avatar as 'Rudra', because they are both connected.

 

Pramana for this - Refer Sri Vishnu Sahasranama. 'ChaturVyoohash' is interpreted as the 4 Vyuha Avatars (functional avatars of Vishnu), ie, Vyuha Vasudeva, Aniruddha, Pradyumna and Sankarshana. Another pramana is the fact that the sons of Lord Krishna were named Aniruddha, Pradyumna, etc. as they were amsas of the Vyuhas.

 

Furthermore, Aniruddha and Pradyumna are also names given in Vishnu Sahasranama.

 

Yet another Pramana is that, in Sri Rudram Chamakam, it is mentioned that all prayers to Rudra go only to Vishnu.

 

Aniruddha induces Brahma to create. Pradyumna is the Preserver. Sankarshana induces Rudra to destroy. The Vyuhas are all functional avatars of Vishnu.

 

Even Adi Sankara accepts this.

 

Since Shathapatha Brahmana says Rudra is a Jiva, it follows that the Rudra emerging from Sriman Narayana's forehead is the avatar Sankarshana who confers special powers to Rudra. This way, any contradictions in Veda is reconciled.

 

Another important point - there are 11 Rudras. Shiva is the Rudra who is also named Isana. So, it is quite possible that births of these Rudras may vary. But the Rudra of the Shathapatha Brahmana is Isana, who is none other than Mahadeva.

 

5) Again, Brahma Samhita is a sectarian text. No use quoting it.

[cbrahma]

 

 

5) Again, Brahma Samhita is a sectarian text. No use quoting it.

 

Why don't you give up? This is a sectarian dispute merely, but your corrections of Prabhupada's translation are hair-splitting and funny at best.

 

BTW where are your texts, your PRAMANAS? I'm just supposed to take your interpretations above those of the acaryas?

 

 

Number 1, Deva Deva does not mean 'Best demigod among demigods'. It means, 'Lord of Devas', or 'Supreme Deity'. Hence, Vishnu is not being addressed as 'Demigod leader', but as 'Supreme Lord' here.

 

You're quibbling between the use of the word Deva and demigod. Deva is not an English word. If Prabhupada used the word 'god' then it would sound like polytheism. Are you a polytheist?

 

So conclusion - The above verse shows Mahadeva calling Vishnu as 'Supreme Lord'. Hence, Vishnu is not an avatar.

 

Visnu as the sattva-guna-avatar is actually Kshirodakashayi Vishnu. Visnu as sattva-guna-avatara is completely transcendant and non-different from Naryana. How is the role of avatara a diminishment of Narayana?

 

 

When you want to indulge in debate, use pramanas from sources accepted by EVERYONE. Which means - 4 Vedas, Upanishads, Puranas (Vishnu and Bhagavata preferably) and Ithihasas.

I don't know who EVERYONE happens to be. In fact I don't care, because Gaudiya Vaisnavism is not EVERYONE's system of belief. Jiva Goswami accepts the Samhita. Whether you do or EVERYBODY does is of no consequence from a Gaudiya Vaisnava perspective.

[shvu]

 

I don't know who EVERYONE happens to be. In fact I don't care, because Gaudiya Vaisnavism is not EVERYONE's system of belief. Jiva Goswami accepts the Samhita. Whether you do or EVERYBODY does is of no consequence from a Gaudiya Vaisnava perspective.

 

Yes, but then you should not be arguing with non-Gaudiya Vaishnavas using Gaudiya specific scriptures, don't you think?

 

But you seem to be doing exactly that. You appear to think your Gaudiya proprietary scriptures and Gurus are to be treated as authority even by people who are not part of the GV system.

 

Cheers

[Dark Warrior]

 

Why don't you give up? This is a sectarian dispute merely, but your corrections of Prabhupada's translation are hair-splitting and funny at best.

 

I see. So, it is a sectarian dispute? Why not use general books instead of Brahma Samhita and see if your theories hold water?

 

 

BTW where are your texts, your PRAMANAS? I'm just supposed to take your interpretations above those of the acaryas?

 

I gave you sufficient pramanas.

 

Veda says Narayana is Supreme, and there is no-one above Him. Bhagavata also sees Narayana and Vasudeva as one and the same.

 

I have given you pramanas from Vedas, Upanishads, Ithihasas and Puranas showing Vishnu to be non-different from Krishna.

 

Rudra is clearly mentioned to be 'Sinful'. TELL ME, HOW CAN AN AVATAR OF NARAYANA HAVE SINS?

 

However, a point is to be mentioned. I am not exactly clear as to whether Rudra came from the forehead of Narayana or from Brahma. Yes, it has been explained, but only by true vedantins, and I am unaware of the explanation. But the point is, Rudra is mentioned to be sinful, and to be absent during pralaya by a text that is accepted by ALL. Thus, Rudra is a Jiva.

 

'Chatur Vyuhash' pertains to the 4 Vyuhas. Sankarshana is a Vyuha.

 

 

 

You're quibbling between the use of the word Deva and demigod. Deva is not an English word. If Prabhupada used the word 'god' then it would sound like polytheism. Are you a polytheist?

 

Deva Deva means Lord of Devas. Can you please tell me where does this indicate that Vishnu is an avatar and not Supreme?

 

Srila Prabhupada mentions 'Guna Avatar'. Tell me, where is Guna avatar indicated in Bhagavatam sanskrit verses?

 

 

Visnu as the sattva-guna-avatar is actually Kshirodakashayi Vishnu. Visnu as sattva-guna-avatara is completely transcendant and non-different from Naryana. How is the role of avatara a diminishment of Narayana?

 

GIVE ME A PRAMANA THAT SAYS VISHNU IS A 'SATTVA GUNA AVATAR'.

 

Again, dimbulb, you are the one saying Vishnu is inferior to Krishna. Understand that Vishnu IS Krishna with ALL attributes.

 

Whether with 4 hands or 2 hands, Krishna is Narayana, Rama is Narayana, Vishnu is Narayana, Narasimha is Narayana. Period.

 

The idea that there can be a 'tamo guna avatar' or a 'rajo guna avatar' is nonsensical. How can the Lord, who is devoid of Rajas and Tamas, manifest as Rajo and Tamo guna avatars?

 

Shiva and Brahma have rajo and tamo gunas because they are jivas.

 

 

 

I don't know who EVERYONE happens to be. In fact I don't care, because Gaudiya Vaisnavism is not EVERYONE's system of belief. Jiva Goswami accepts the Samhita. Whether you do or EVERYBODY does is of no consequence from a Gaudiya Vaisnava perspective.

 

You can accept the Samhita, AFTER you prove that your philosophy exists in every Veda, Ithihasa and Purana.

 

Advaitins have a text called 'Ashtavakra Gita' where Advaita is the philosophy espoused. But they do not use it in debates.

 

Sri Vaishnavas have the Prabandha, but we do not use it in debates.

 

Similarly, Brahma Samhita is sectarian.

 

When in a debate, use authentic texts like the Vedas, Upanishads, Ithihasas and Sattvik Puranas.

 

1) The idea that Vishnu is an 'expansion' of Krishna is in Brahma Samhita.

 

2) The idea that Shiva is an avatar is in Brahma Samhita.

 

Therfore, prove it without a sectarian text.

[cbrahma]

To DW

You have decided that the Brahma samhita is sectarian. That is a sectarian argument.

Why should GV's reject their samhita just because others have decided it is sectarian?

 

Where are your texts to prove that Siva is a jiva?

It's too easy to say that you have given such and such. Produce it.

 

The guna avatars are common knowledge even to those who are not Hindu.

 

sei padma-nale ha-ila caudda bhuvana

tenho 'brahma' hana srsti karila srjana

 

And this Brahma is a living being, jiva-tattva. He is not Visnu-tattva. Just see how much a living being can be powerful. 'Now, Brahma was created by this Garbhodakasayi Visnu, and Brahma in his turn, he created all these planetary systems." There are fourteen status of planetary system, caudda bhuvana: Bhurloka, Bhuvarloka, Janaloka, Maharloka, Tapoloka, and similarly, there are fourteen planetary systems all over this universe.

 

 

 

'visnu'-rupa hana kare jagat palane

gunatita visnu-sparsa nahi maya-sane

 

 

"Now, this Visnu has nothing to do. He is not affected by this material contamination." That is the power of Visnu. Just we are living entities. When we come into this material world, we become contaminated, we become affected by the influence of this material nature. But Visnu, although He is looking after the management of creation of this brahmanda, He is not affected. He is not affected.

 

 

 

'visnu'-rupa hana kare jagat palane

gunatita visnu-sparsa nahi maya-sane

'rudra'-rupa dhari kare jagat samhara

 

 

And when these material worlds or universes are to be annihilated, the same Visnu in His form of Lord Siva, Rudra-rupa, He annihilates. So Visnu creates, and Lord Siva annihilates, and Brahma is in charge of this universe.

 

 

 

brahma, visnu, siva-tanra guna-avatara

srsti-sthiti-pralayera tinera adhikara

 

 

 

Of course since you have rejected the Brahma samhita out of hand, then you are protected from this knowledge.

Generally, I don't know what you are trying to prove exactly. That there is nobody in charge of sattva-guna? That there is no such thing as guna-avatara? That Narayana is an expansion of Visnu?

It is not at all clear.

[Ganeshprasad]

 

 

 

 

Can you see the inconsistence in your above two quotes?

 

 

Are you also not doing the same, taking few verses from here and there and building a big picture. Vedas are mind field of information, not just few, choice well versed Vedic sukta. Opinion and interpretation are generally based on ones school of thought, every camp does that, only sometimes the truth becomes the casualty.

 

I had been greatly influenced by Sant Tulsidas in my early days, that is one reason behind my understandings, but why should I not think for my self, why should I not accept what Lord Krishna is saying or sri Vayasdev is saying literally. Why should I reject Shiv puran in preference to Bhagvat puran, just because you say so. You can’t even accept Bhagvat puran which so clear in its prayer to Lord, it is as clear as day light that is addressed to Lord Shiva and I am expected to except that all prayer go to Vishu.

you know something I actually do because I do not see any different between the two, except their different function.

 

I do not reject anything what Ved Vyasdev has given, even if I do not understand all that has been written. You on other hand have to reject a lot or interpert certain verses so as to agree with your sampradaya, thanks but no thanks.

 

Lord Shiva has been worshiped since a very old time not just confined to India but a lot of different part of the world, in fact oldest temple to be found is off Lord shiva.

 

Sridhar Swami whose commentary on Bhagvat puran is accepted by Sri Cetanya Mahaprabhu, writes in regards to prajapati prayers to Lord Shiva, anyone who see the difference between the two having seen this prayers are simply engaged in useless discourse.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

[Dark Warrior]

 

To DW

You have decided that the Brahma samhita is sectarian. That is a sectarian argument.

Why should GV's reject their samhita just because others have decided it is sectarian?

 

In order to prove that a text is not sectarian, you need to show that it is consistent with Veda et al. So, prove that Brahma Samhita's philosophy exists in all other texts first.

 

For instance, noone can take an Archie Comic Book and say, 'This is Veda'. You need to prove that the content of the book is consistent with all scriptures that are considered as universal by all Sampradayas. Brahma Samhita contradicts Veda.

 

But yes, prove that it doesn't contradict Veda, then I will accept it. However, no disrespect - the Brahma Samhita is a masterpiece if you consider it as a devotional work and not as scriptural pramana.

 

 

Where are your texts to prove that Siva is a jiva?

It's too easy to say that you have given such and such. Produce it.

 

Are you completely blind? All along I have been providing pramanas.

 

1) Bhootanam ca Prajapatis samvatsaraya dikshitah | Bhootanam pathir gruhapathir aaseet | Usha Patni | …………….. bhootanam pathis samvatsara ushasi rodho(a)sinchat | Samvatsare kumaro jayatha | sorodheeth | tam prajapathirabraveet | kumara kim rodhishi | yachhramath tapasodhi jathoseethi | so(a)braveet anapahatapapma vaa ahamanahithanama | nama me dehi paapno(a)pahatya iti | tam punah prajapathi braveet | rudro(a)seethi | ……….. rudrobhavachcharva isanah pathir bhima ugra iti sapta namani |"

 

"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)"

 

~ Shathapatha Brahmana.

 

Rudra is mentioned as sinful here. Tell me, how can an 'avatar' be sinful? And it is also clear that Brahma gave this Jiva names.

 

No avatar can have sins. This clearly negates the view that Rudra is an avatar.

 

This Rudra, named 'Isana', is same as the Shiva we know. That is verified by another Pramana, which I shall provide below.

 

2) 'eko ha vai nArAyAna Aseeth na brahmaha na ISAnaha

neme dyava pruthivi na nakshatrAni na sUryaha.'

 

Narayana existed, manifestly alone, the only purusha, and neither Brahma nor Siva, nor the sky, nor the earth, nor the stars, and nor the sun were existent.

 

~ Mahanarayana Upanishad.

 

'Isana' here is Rudra. So, it shows that Rudra was absent during Pralaya. Now, Pralaya only happens in the material world, when Vishnu initiates it. Vaikuntha is beyond the realms and is unaffected by pralaya.

 

Only Jivas are absent during Pralaya, because during that time, they reside in the stomach of the Lord. Hence, Rudra is a Jiva.

 

You can argue, 'Maybe Lord Vishnu makes His avatars disappear during pralaya'. This is negated by the fact that Rudra is mentioned along with Brahma, Sun, Stars, etc. There is no mention of any avatar here.

 

Now, also note that 'Isana' specifically is mentioned here. Because in reality, there are 11 Rudras, of which Shiva is the greatest. And in my previous pramana from Shathapatha Brahmana, 'Isana' was given by Brahma as a name to Rudra. So, 'Isana' indicates the leader of the Rudras, ie, Shiva.

 

So, Pramana #1 says Rudra has sins. Pramana # 2 says Rudra is absent during Pralaya. During Pralaya, the Jivas enter a subtle state. Then, they take birth again in different forms. So, if Rudra is susceptible to Pralaya, it means that Rudra is within the material realms, leading to the conclusion that the post of 'Rudra' is temporary, as this Jiva is also under bondage and hence subject to transmigration.

 

Hence, Rudra is a Jiva. Put two and two together.

 

 

2) "mahA-deva: sarva-medhe mahAtmA hutvA AtmAnam deva-deva: babhUva "

-- Mahabharata, SAnti-parvam 20.12

 

Meaning: Having performed sarva-medha-yagam, Mahadeva (ie Siva) then achieved greatness amongst devas.

 

Clearly shows that Shiva had to do some Yagya to achieve his status. This means that any jiva, including myself and cBrahma can become Rudra by performing some penances.

 

3) ata purushohavai nArAyanO kAmayata| prajA Srujeyeti|

nArAyAnA prAnO jAyAte|

mana: sarvendriyAni ca yAyur jyotirApa: pritivI

viswasyadArini| nArAyAnAt brahmA jAyAte| nArAyAnAt rudro jAyate|

nArAyanAt prajApati: prajAyate|

nArAyAnAt dvAdasAdityA rudrA vasava: sarvAni cchamdAmsi

nArAyAnAt deva samutpatyante|

nArAyAnAt pravartante| nArAyanAt praLeyante|

etat rigvedasiroyodite|

 

~ Mahanarayana Upanishad.

 

Here, Rudra is mentioned as part of Narayana's creation (atma, though, is eternal, of course). If Rudra was an avatar, he wouldn't be mentioned here.

 

4) Another pramana is seen in our ithihasas and Puranas. In Vishnu Purana, it is clearly mentioned that Rudra fought against Krishna in the Banasura episode, upon which Krishna chastised him. There are also instances when Rudra considered himself to be supreme and rebelled against Vishnu.

 

These acts are due to the fact that Rudra is a Jiva. No Jiva is exempt from faults. Like they say, 'nobody is perfect'...except Vishnu.

 

5) Summary: Rudra has some faults. For example, he is not absolutely unborn like Vishnu is. The Shatapatha Brahmana (6.3.1.8-19.) refers to his crying after being born of prajapati. (Btw, the being who is loka-prasiddha as rudra is also known as Ugra and Ishana according to the same text). Here, the 'kumara' himself claims that he is not sinless. Birth of Rudra is predicated in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad too. The Rigveda also has a lady speaker (ambhrani, which is another name for Lakshmi) say that she makes, whomsoever she wishes to make, as Rudra or Brahma etc. So, Rudra is not absolutely powerful. Also note the fact that Lakshmi says that She can make ANYONE, whomsover She wishes, as Rudra. This shows that Rudra is nothing more than a post. Then, 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. Finally another sukta (vayA viSNoreSasya prabhRthe havirbhiH | vide hi rudro rudriyaM) tells us that rudra gets his 'rudratva' from his prayers to Vishnu.

 

All this, coupled with specific references to his absence in pralaya and his sins, makes Rudra a jiva. Maybe an exalted Jiva, but a jiva nonetheless. Hence, to say he is '86% Krishna' is nonsense.

 

 

 

The guna avatars are common knowledge even to those who are not Hindu.

 

Uh, have you ever read the theology of the Sri or Madhva sampradaya? Neither of them accept this Vishnu is a 90% 'guna avatar' of Krishna concept.

 

Please, get your nose out of Srila Prabhupada's books and do some studying.

 

 

Of course since you have rejected the Brahma samhita out of hand, then you are protected from this knowledge.

 

No problem. Provide me with pramanas from any of the 4 Vedas, 2 Ithihasas, Gita, Sahasranama, or Puranas (Vishnu and Bhagavata Purana) that validates any concept in Brahma Samhita. Then I will accept it.

 

 

Generally, I don't know what you are trying to prove exactly. That there is nobody in charge of sattva-guna? That there is no such thing as guna-avatara? That Narayana is an expansion of Visnu?

It is not at all clear.

 

I am aware that Hare Krishnas are confused regarding this concept. That is the reason why they keep denigrating Vishnu and equating Him with Rudra and Brahma, who are Jivas. I will explain it later.

 

And yes, there is no such thing as a guna avatara. Unless you consider the Vyuhas as possessing selective attributes.

[Dark Warrior]

 

Can you see the inconsistence in your above two quotes?

 

 

Are you also not doing the same, taking few verses from here and there and building a big picture.

 

No inconsistency. Interpretation is required. Then, you use your brains to see which acharya has made the best interpretation that resolves contradictions.

 

Srila Prabhupada's commentary contradicts shruti. Hence, it cannot be accepted as it is.

 

Typical. Misinformed hindus side with cBrahma, just like they did in the Jesus thread. And once again, I am stuck explaining this to them.

 

1) Ganeshprasad has been posting english translations. Whereas, I have posted the Sanskrit verses as well. If you have an alternate interpretation, then out with it. I can refute it.

 

2) The pramanas I give have been used by Vaishnavas many times to defeat Shaivites and Advaitins.

 

3) The Pramanas I gave are fairly straight forward and there is no way to interpret them otherwise. For example, 'Na Isana', means there was not even Shiva at the time. Straightforward. Similarly, 'Papa' means Sins. Hence, nothing ambiguous.

 

Ganeshprasad gives a translation like 'Impersonal Brahman', which is not the right translation for 'Brahman'. This is questionable indeed.

 

And even more hypocritical is the fact that, you completely ignore the purports for the translation you took. Even if I accept Srila Prabhupada's translation, he has also mentioned in the purport that all prayers to Shiva are indeed directed to Vishnu only. Yet, you choose to ignore that little detail.

 

I think the main confusion with Hare Krishnas is that they are unaware of who Vishnu is, and the extent of His identity with Krishna. I will explain it later, like I said.

 

 

Lord Shiva has been worshiped since a very old time not just confined to India but a lot of different part of the world, in fact oldest temple to be found is off Lord shiva.

 

Sridhar Swami whose commentary on Bhagvat puran is accepted by Sri Cetanya Mahaprabhu, writes in regards to prajapati prayers to Lord Shiva, anyone who see the difference between the two having seen this prayers are simply engaged in useless discourse.

 

Post pramanas and not opinions. Again, making the same mistake. You never learn, do you?

 

In any case, if you want to worship Shiva, I am not stopping you.

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam

 

 

No inconsistency. Interpretation is required. Then, you use your brains to see which acharya has made the best interpretation that resolves contradictions.

 

 

 

No thank you, I see no contradiction to say so would be to insult Veda Vyas who apparently gives contradictions according to you.

This could only happen when one start with a notion what Brahman is and then anything else that don’t fit with our ideology we need interpretation, to the extent we will kill off Vedic gods just to prove our point.

So I will use my brain and accept what Sri Vyasdev says literally, I see no contradiction in his writing I don’t reject Shiv Puran for that matter other purans based on anyone’s assertion, to do so would be to accuse Vyasdeva that he did not know srutis.

 

 

 

 

Typical. Misinformed hindus side with cBrahma, just like they did in the Jesus thread. And once again, I am stuck explaining this to them.

 

Well don’t bother and just for the record, I stayed well away from Jesus thread.

 

 

 

1) Ganeshprasad has been posting english translations. Whereas, I have posted the Sanskrit verses as well. If you have an alternate interpretation, then out with it. I can refute it.

 

There is no problem posting Sanskrit verses from Bhagvatam thanks to Srila Prabhupada.

In any case verse numbers were given. The purpose for those verses were that Prajapati are praying to Lord Shiva there is no escaping that, there is no doubt about that. I don’t need no interpretation I accept just as given by Vyasdeva.

 

 

2) The pramanas I give have been used by Vaishnavas many times to defeat Shaivites and Advaitins.

 

Self proclaimed victory does not wash with me, purpose of spiritual life is not about victory over my god against yours, which seems to preoccupy you. It is about transcending this Tamas that is why we pray Lead us from this deep darkness to light.

 

 

 

Ganeshprasad gives a translation like 'Impersonal Brahman', which is not the right translation for 'Brahman'. This is questionable indeed.

 

I have already admitted to this but it does not change anything as regards to the actual prayer.

 

 

 

And even more hypocritical is the fact that, you completely ignore the purports for the translation you took. Even if I accept Srila Prabhupada's translation, he has also mentioned in the purport that all prayers to Shiva are indeed directed to Vishnu only. Yet, you choose to ignore that little detail.

 

I don’t know why you say hypocritical I do not follow Prabhupada, I certainly do not read biased purport from any one. I am interested in Bhagvatam and what Vyasdeva is saying, I have my own version in Gujarati but English is readily available By Srila Prabhupada.

 

 

 

I think the main confusion with Hare Krishnas is that they are unaware of who Vishnu is, and the extent of His identity with Krishna. I will explain it later, like I said.

 

I am no Hare Krishna nor do I think they be interested in what you have to say with your brand of humility.

 

 

 

 

In any case, if you want to worship Shiva, I am not stopping you.

 

You cant even if you tried.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

[Dark Warrior]

The intelligence of Ganeshprasad is staggering. He understands the exact purport of Sri Vyasa perfectly in one go, whereas so many scholars over times immemorial have struggled to grasp the concepts of Vedanta. How cool is that?

 

I don't deny that prajapatis pray to Shiva. Srimad Ramayana says, 'The Devas pray to Shiva. Shiva prays to Brahma. Brahma prays to Vishnu.'

 

Hence, it is a heirarchy.

 

Since Ganeshprasad will accuse me here of 'twisted interpretations', I will explain it here:

 

Now, Upanishads suggest Brahma Vidyas where Indra is meditated upon as the object of deliverance. But it is to be understood that the meditator focuses not on the Jiva named Indra, but on the indweller, who is Vishnu.

 

Therfore, the Devas address Shiva as 'Bhuta Atman' meaning, All-Pervading'. This is nothing more than an addressal to Vishnu, who is the indweller of the Jiva named Shiva.

 

Here are pramanas to substantiate this:

 

- In Bhagavatam 8.12.4 (so kindly provided by cBrahma earlier on), Shiva prays to Vishnu and calls Him Lord of the Worlds. Hence, you cannot have two supreme Lords. From Vedic Sastra, it is abundantly clear that Rudra is a Jiva.

 

- Lord Krishna emphasises that He cannot be attained except by a Guru. Hence, the Devas have Brahma and Shiva as their Gurus, and treat these two Mahadevas as those capable of providing liberation.

 

- Sri Rudram Chamakam clearly says that Vishnu is the indweller of Rudra. Only Jivas have the Lord as indweller. If Rudra was an avatar of the Lord, why would he have Vishnu as his indweller? Hence, Rudra is a Jiva.

 

- Srimad Bhagavatam verifies that Narayana is the absolute reality in various instances.

 

- Brahma Sutras say that only One Being is responsible for Creation, Preservation and Destruction. That One Being is Sriman Narayana.

 

Ganeshprasad needs to understand the difference between Vedic Texts and Non-Vedic ones like Ramacharitmanasa.

 

 

I don’t know why you say hypocritical I do not follow Prabhupada, I certainly do not read biased purport from any one.

 

There are very few Shaivite commentators on the Bhagavatam. Only Vaishnava acharyas have commentated on it.

 

And all Vaishnava Acharyas agree that in this context, prayers to Shiva go to Vishnu. Even Srila Prabhupada has remained consistent with this.

 

So, tell me, what makes you think you know the true meaning and can ignore about 10 purports in one go?

 

One more pramana. This verse is part of the prayer of the Devas to Shiva:

 

guṇa-mayyāsva-śaktyāsya

sarga-sthity-apyayānvibho

dhatseyadāsva-dṛg bhūman

brahma-viṣṇu-śivābhidhām (8.7.23)

 

It is given that One Being manifests as Vishnu, Shiva and Brahma for functional purposes. Unfortunately, this is where Srila Prabhupada lumps Vishnu with Brahma and Shiva and calls all three as 'guna avatars'.

 

Here is proof. If Shiva is the one being prayed to by the Devas, then why is this verse being addressed to the One Being who manifests as Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva?

 

Because, this prayer is directed to the indweller of Shiva, and not to Shiva. That is why Shiva's name is also mentioned in this verse.

 

In reality, Vedas confirm that only Vishnu is the avatar of Sriman Narayana, with 100% attributes, who resides on the Ocean of Milk. The Vedas however, confirm that both Brahma and Rudra are jivas. Aniruddha and Sankarshana provide the powers of creation and destruction to them.

 

Hence, this verse shouldn't be taken to mean all 3 are equal. Since Vishnu manifests His powers through Brahma and Shiva, He often refers to them as Himself. But Srimad Valmiki Ramayana clears up all doubts thusly:

 

"tata: tvam-api durdharsha: tasmad-bhAvat sanAtanAt |

rakshArtham sarva-bhUtAnAm vishNu tvam upajagmivAn || "

-- SrI vAlmIki rAmAyaNam 2.101.26

 

Meaning: Brahma said to Vishnu,"At my request, You the insurmountable Supreme Self, incarnated as Vishnu amidst Siva & myself in order to protect all."

 

Note, this verse says only Vishnu has incarnated amidst Brahma and Shiva, thus indicating that Vishnu alone is the Supreme Lord.

 

Therfore, unless you take the explanation by Vaishnavas, you will have to say that bhagavatam contradicts Vedas. But take it from one who knows, Bhagavatam is the exact purport of Vedas. There is no contradiction at all.

 

Why would the Lord only want to protect, and not create or destroy openly? Answer is simple: He is not interested in creation or destruction, and hence leaves it to jivas (after giving them powers). He loves protecting everyone more, so He manifests directly for it.

 

When you say Vishnu is the 'protector', it means He protects all, including Brahma and Shiva.

 

 

I don’t reject Shiv Puran for that matter other purans based on anyone’s assertion, to do so would be to accuse Vyasdeva that he did not know srutis.

 

Convieniently ignoring the fact that the Puranas classify themselves as Sattvic, Rajasic and Tamasic.

 

Whatever.

 

EDIT: Here is Krishna telling Arjuna that He is the indweller of Rudra,

 

ahamAtmA hi lokAnAM vishvAnAM pANDunandana

tasmAdAtmAnamevAgre rudraM sampUjayAmyaham

yadyahaM nArchayeyaM vai IshAnaM varadaM shivam

AtmAnaM nArchayetkashchiditi me bhAvitaM manaH

O Son of Pandu, I am, indeed, the Atma, the indweller of this universe and

the worlds. Therefore, I worship myself first, even when I worship Rudra. If

I did not worship Rudra, the bestower of boons, in such a way (i.e.,

worshipping the indwelling Lord first), some would not worship me, the

indwelling Lord, at all - this is my opinion.

 

An avatar of the Lord would not have the Lord as indweller, because He himself would be the Lord. Hence, Rudra is a Jiva who has Vishnu as the indweller. No use refuting this.

[Avinash]

 

Now, Upanishads suggest Brahma Vidyas where Indra is meditated upon as the object of deliverance. But it is to be understood that the meditator focuses not on the Jiva named Indra, but on the indweller, who is Vishnu.

What is the proof that the mediator focusses on the indweller and not on Indra? And if he really focusses on the indweller, then what is the proof that this indweller is Vishnu?

 

 

Therfore, the Devas address Shiva as 'Bhuta Atman' meaning, All-Pervading'. This is nothing more than an addressal to Vishnu, who is the indweller of the Jiva named Shiva.

Why can't it mean that devas call Shiva as all-pervading?

 

 

- In Bhagavatam 8.12.4 (so kindly provided by cBrahma earlier on), Shiva prays to Vishnu and calls Him Lord of the Worlds. Hence, you cannot have two supreme Lords. From Vedic Sastra, it is abundantly clear that Rudra is a Jiva.

And in Shiv Purana, Vishnu prays to Shiva.

 

 

- Sri Rudram Chamakam clearly says that Vishnu is the indweller of Rudra. Only Jivas have the Lord as indweller. If Rudra was an avatar of the Lord, why would he have Vishnu as his indweller? Hence, Rudra is a Jiva.

Thanks for mentioning this. I am not aware of Rudram Chamakam. But I will read it if I can lay my hand upon it.

 

 

- Srimad Bhagavatam verifies that Narayana is the absolute reality in various instances.

Yes, but some Puranas call Shiva as the absolute truth and Devi Bhagavatam calls Durga as the highest. Which one to believe?

 

 

If Shiva is the one being prayed to by the Devas, then why is this verse being addressed to the One Being who manifests as Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva?

 

Because, this prayer is directed to the indweller of Shiva, and not to Shiva. That is why Shiva's name is also mentioned in this verse.

You are saying that Shiva's name is mentioned in the verse. Therefore, according to you, the prayer is not directed to Shiva. But note that the verse always mentions Vishnu. Using the same logic, can we not say that the prayer is not directed to Vishnu?

 

 

In reality, Vedas confirm that only Vishnu is the avatar of Sriman Narayana, with 100% attributes, who resides on the Ocean of Milk. The Vedas however, confirm that both Brahma and Rudra are jivas. Aniruddha and Sankarshana provide the powers of creation and destruction to them.

Which Vedas say it?

[tackleberry]

 

In any case verse numbers were given. The purpose for those verses were that Prajapati are praying to Lord Shiva there is no escaping that, there is no doubt about that. I don’t need no interpretation I accept just as given by Vyasdeva.

Excellent! The same Bhagavatam also says in 8.12.27:

 

tām anvagacchad bhagavān

bhavaḥ pramuṣitendriyaḥ

kāmasya ca vaśaḿ nītaḥ

kareṇum iva yūthapaḥ

 

TRANSLATION

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

--------------------------------

So Ganesh Prasad, do you accept what Vyasadeva says in the above instance?

 

 

 

I am interested in Bhagvatam and what Vyasdeva is saying

In that case, you also believe in the following bhagavatam verses, right?

 

 

8.12.28

 

so 'nuvrajyātivegena

gṛhītvānicchatīḿ striyam

keśa-bandha upānīya

bāhubhyāḿ pariṣasvaje

 

TRANSLATION

After following Her with great speed, Lord Śiva caught Her by the braid of Her hair and dragged Her near him. Although She was unwilling, he embraced Her with his arms.

 

 

8.12.31tasyāsau padavīḿ rudro

viṣṇor adbhuta-karmaṇaḥ

pratyapadyata kāmena

vairiṇeva vinirjitaḥ

 

TRANSLATION

As if harassed by an enemy in the form of lusty desires, Lord Śiva followed the path of Lord Viṣṇu, who acts very wonderfully and who had taken the form of Mohinī.

----

 

So Ganesh Prasad, do you accept the above verses given in the bhagavatam?

[Dark Warrior]

I wish people would take time to see the pramanas I have been providing. Its tiresome to repeat everything for the benefit of irresponsible posters who just can't face facts.

 

 

What is the proof that the mediator focusses on the indweller and not on Indra? And if he really focusses on the indweller, then what is the proof that this indweller is Vishnu?

 

Are you aware of the Brahma Vidyas? Brahman within the Sun, within the Moon, etc? It is explicitly mentioned that the indweller is propitiated.

 

 

Why can't it mean that devas call Shiva as all-pervading?

 

Contradicts Shruti, namely, Shathapatha Brahmana which says Rudra is not cleansed of sins (refer to my earlier post), and this pramana:

 

tasminhi pUjyamAne vai devadeve maheshvare

sampUjito bhavetpArtha devo nArAyaNaH prabhuH

It is the Lord, the prabhu, the Narayana *IN* Maheshvara (the worshippable, the lord of the devas), who is actually worshipped.

 

~ SANTI PARVA, MAHABHARATA.

 

Do you need anything clearer than this? A child can understand this concept.

 

 

And in Shiv Purana, Vishnu prays to Shiva.

 

----

 

Yes, but some Puranas call Shiva as the absolute truth and Devi Bhagavatam calls Durga as the highest. Which one to believe?

 

Stop quoting Tamasic Puranas.

 

 

You are saying that Shiva's name is mentioned in the verse. Therefore, according to you, the prayer is not directed to Shiva. But note that the verse always mentions Vishnu. Using the same logic, can we not say that the prayer is not directed to Vishnu?

 

Here, we refer to Shruti, which clearly mentions Vishnu is unborn and is an avatar of Narayana. 'Narayana vidmahe Vasudevaya Dimahe Tanno Visnoh Prachodayat'.

 

Rudra and Brahma have been mentioned to have been born from Narayana.

 

Furthermore, Lord Vishnu can always call Himself 'I am Brahma, I am Shiva', as they are part of His body.

 

Hence, Vishnu is Narayana. He is simply mentioned within the context of His function here.

Which Vedas say it?

 

Rig, Sama, Yajur, Atharva, the Samhitas, Aranyakas, Brahmanas, Upanishads and also the Sattvik Puranas, Gita, Ithihasas, Sahasranama and Vedanta Sutras.

 

Need a list?

[Amlesh]

 

Stop quoting Tamasic Puranas.

 

 

:)You do possess a very humorous but striking way of answering questions.

 

Well I guess, you should be knowing the answer perfectly, but sometimes not giving the answer is considered to be wise.

[Avinash]

 

tasminhi pUjyamAne vai devadeve maheshvare

sampUjito bhavetpArtha devo nArAyaNaH prabhuH

It is the Lord, the prabhu, the Narayana *IN* Maheshvara (the worshippable, the lord of the devas), who is actually worshipped.

 

~ SANTI PARVA, MAHABHARATA.

I will be grateful if you tell me the verse number.

 

 

Stop quoting Tamasic Puranas.

Please give a list of what Puranas you consider as Sattvik. And what about Mahabharata and Ramayana? Do you consider those as authentic?

 

 

Rig, Sama, Yajur, Atharva, the Samhitas, Aranyakas, Brahmanas, Upanishads and also the Sattvik Puranas, Gita, Ithihasas, Sahasranama and Vedanta Sutras.

 

Need a list?

Yes, I have read Vishnu being called as Supreme in many verses in Vedas. But I have seen other verses in the Vedas calling other gods as supreme as well.

[Avinash]

 

No thank you, I see no contradiction to say so would be to insult Veda Vyas who apparently gives contradictions according to you.

This could only happen when one start with a notion what Brahman is and then anything else that don’t fit with our ideology we need interpretation, to the extent we will kill off Vedic gods just to prove our point.

So I will use my brain and accept what Sri Vyasdev says literally, I see no contradiction in his writing I don’t reject Shiv Puran for that matter other purans based on anyone’s assertion, to do so would be to accuse Vyasdeva that he did not know srutis.

I wish I also could see no contradiction. But some Puranas call Vishnu as supreme and some call Shiv as supreme. Don't you think there is contradiction? How can both be supreme?

[Amlesh]

This thread seems to be asymptotic by nature. It seems that there is an end but this very end does not exist.

[Dark Warrior]

I will end it. Atleast for myself.

 

Avinash and co., it is clear that you are confused regarding the range of names used in the Veda, and how all of it can be attributed to Vishnu. So, by asking questions such as, 'How can the name 'Rudra' be applied to Vishnu?', you are simply asking me to define Vaishnavism.

 

It isn't humanly possible for me to explain ALL the details regarding Vaishnavism. Vishnu Supremacy is unmistakeable in our sastra, as is the status of devas like Rudra and Brahma. I have already given a brief explanation of how different contradictions in the Veda can be smoothly resolved if we adopt the stance that Vishnu is the One Deity who is lauded supreme.

 

Ganeshprasad and Avinash (no offense intended) ask me to repeat the same thing again and again. Quite frankly, there is a lot of sentiment attached here, and it is obvious that no-one is going to let go of it that easily.

 

Believe what you must. At any rate, it is not my mission to convert Hindus who worship Shiva. I was only arguing with other Vaishnavas about how they view Shiva. In any case, I am done here.

[Avinash]

To Dark Warrior,

You called Vishnu as supreme. Therefore, I pointed out that many verses call Shiva as supreme. In the past, in this site itself, somebody claimed that Shiva is supreme. At that time, I pointed out that many verses call Vishnu as supreme.

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam

 

 

I wish I also could see no contradiction. But some Puranas call Vishnu as supreme and some call Shiv as supreme. Don't you think there is contradiction? How can both be supreme?

 

Reasonable question. Veda Vyas would not give us contradictions would he?

 

Not if you view them as part of the same coin, there are references saying Hari and Hara are one but difference in function.

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam

 

 

The intelligence of Ganeshprasad is staggering. He understands the exact purport of Sri Vyasa perfectly in one go, whereas so many scholars over times immemorial have struggled to grasp the concepts of Vedanta. How cool is that?

.

 

 

 

Simple really, keep it simple accept everything that Veda Vyas has given, instead of spending life time trying to reconcile apparent contradiction, were there are none, only except in our mind because we have hierarchy problem.

 

 

 

I don't deny that prajapatis pray to Shiva. Srimad Ramayana says, 'The Devas pray to Shiva. Shiva prays to Brahma. Brahma prays to Vishnu.'

 

Hence, it is a heirarchy.

 

So they pray to each other, hardly surprising depending on which verse or book you are reading.

 

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

 

 

 

 

Now, Upanishads suggest Brahma Vidyas where Indra is meditated upon as the object of deliverance. But it is to be understood that the meditator focuses not on the Jiva named Indra, but on the indweller, who is Vishnu.

 

Great logic, as I said you will spend life time trying to reconcile all the srutis instead of accepting for what it is worth.

 

 

 

Therfore, the Devas address Shiva as 'Bhuta Atman' meaning, All-Pervading'. This is nothing more than an addressal to Vishnu, who is the indweller of the Jiva named Shiva.

Funny really, Lord Vishnu was right there, I am surprised he did not drink the poison if going by your logic that the prayers were actually addressed to Lord Vishnu.

 

 

 

Here are pramanas to substantiate this:

 

- In Bhagavatam 8.12.4 (so kindly provided by cBrahma earlier on), Shiva prays to Vishnu and calls Him Lord of the Worlds. Hence, you cannot have two supreme Lords. From Vedic Sastra, it is abundantly clear that Rudra is a Jiva.

 

I never said there are two supreme, I have always maintained that they are two side of same coin. Try learn from Lord Vishnu himself

 

4.7/50-54 The lord said: The supreme cause of the universe, I am also Brahma (the creator) and Lord Shiva (the destroyer of the universe). I am the self, the lord and the witness, self effulgent and unqualified. Embracing my own Maya, consisting of the three gunas, it is I who create, protect and destroy the universe have assumed names appropriate to my functions, O Brahmana! It is in such a Brahman, the supreme sprit, who is one without a second, that the ignorant fool views Brahma, Rudra and other beings as distinct entities. Just as a man never conceives his own head, hands and other limbs as belonging to anyone else, even so he who is devoted to me does not regard his fellow creatures as distant from himself.

He who sees no difference between Us three (Brahma, Rudra and Myself)-who are identical in essence and the very selves of all living beings-attains peace, O Daksa.

Sri Bhagvat 4.1-28Atri Muni desiring a son like him called upon the Bhagvan thinking of him only. But although he is far beyond the mental speculation of man, all three of you have come here. kindly let me know how you have come, I am greatly bewildered about this.

 

4.1-30 the three devas told Atri Muni, Dear brahmana you are perfect in your determination, and therefore as you have desired so it will happen, it will not happen otherwise. We are all the same person upon whom you were meditating, and therefore we have all come to you.

Vishupuran say this 5.33-46 yo harih sa siva saksad yah sivah sa svayam harih ye tayor bhedam ati sthan narak aya bhave narah.

Whoever is lord hari, he himself is lord shiva indeed any human being mistake both the lords to be different,he/she surely goes to hell

 

yatha siva mayo vishnuh Sivasya hrdyam Visnur Visnoz ca hrdayam Sivah(Skanda puran)

 

Just as Lord Vishnu is pervaded by Lord Shiva,

Similarly, in Shivas heart Vishnu resides and Vishnus heart is abode of Shiva.

 

 

- Lord Krishna emphasises that He cannot be attained except by a Guru. Hence, the Devas have Brahma and Shiva as their Gurus, and treat these two Mahadevas as those capable of providing liberation.

Great we have some progress, thanks for the small mercy.

SB 4.6/45 O most auspicious lord, you have ordained the heavenly planets, the spiritual Vaikuṇṭha planets and the Brahman sphere as the respective destinations of the performers of auspicious activities. Similarly, for others, who are miscreants, you have destined different kinds of hells which are horrible and ghastly. Yet sometimes it is found that their destinations are just the opposite. It is very difficult to ascertain the cause of this.

 

 

- Srimad Bhagavatam verifies that Narayana is the absolute reality in various instances.

 

I agree

 

 

 

- Brahma Sutras say that only One Being is responsible for Creation, Preservation and Destruction. That One Being is Sriman Narayana.

I agree but in carrying out those function he assumes those different names which we all know.

 

 

Ganeshprasad needs to understand the difference between Vedic Texts and Non-Vedic ones like Ramacharitmanasa.

 

Try telling that to Morari Bapu.

 

 

 

There are very few Shaivite commentators on the Bhagavatam. Only Vaishnava acharyas have commentated on it.

 

And all Vaishnava Acharyas agree that in this context, prayers to Shiva go to Vishnu. Even Srila Prabhupada has remained consistent with this.

 

Try reading Sridhar Swami’s commentary who Sri Chetanya Mahaprbhu endorses, he certainly sees them as one, or go ask Rameshbhai Oza he recites Bhagvatam, he has Sandipani Ashram near Porbandar.

 

 

 

One more pramana. This verse is part of the prayer of the Devas to Shiva:

 

guṇa-mayyāsva-śaktyāsya

sarga-sthity-apyayānvibho

dhatseyadāsva-dṛg bhūman

brahma-viṣṇu-śivābhidhām (8.7.23)

 

It is given that One Being manifests as Vishnu, Shiva and Brahma for functional purposes. Unfortunately, this is where Srila Prabhupada lumps Vishnu with Brahma and Shiva and calls all three as 'guna avatars'.

 

You are simply clutching at straws, prayers are addressed at Lord Shiva and he is being called all this names that bring forth creation matainance and destruction. Ramash Bhai Oza calls this fondly, as GOD G=genarator O=operator and D=destroyer.

 

The translation give by Prabhupada is not wrong

O lord, you are self-effulgent and supreme. You create this material world by your personal energy, and you assume the names Brahmā, Viṣṇu and Maheśvara when you act in creation, maintenance and annihilation.

 

 

 

 

 

Convieniently ignoring the fact that the Puranas classify themselves as Sattvic, Rajasic and Tamasic.

 

Did Vyasdev tell you to ignore any? Are puranas in it self tamsic etc in nature? Or are this three personalities who have control over this guna, and the Puranas actually sing their glories in their respective field and place them beyond the reach of this Gunas.

 

 

Jai Shree Krishna

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam

 

 

Excellent! The same Bhagavatam also says in 8.12.27:

 

tām anvagacchad bhagavān

bhavaḥ pramuṣitendriyaḥ

kāmasya ca vaśaḿ nītaḥ

kareṇum iva yūthapaḥ

 

TRANSLATION

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

--------------------------------

So Ganesh Prasad, do you accept what Vyasadeva says in the above instance?

 

 

 

 

In that case, you also believe in the following bhagavatam verses, right?

 

 

8.12.28

 

so 'nuvrajyātivegena

gṛhītvānicchatīḿ striyam

keśa-bandha upānīya

bāhubhyāḿ pariṣasvaje

 

TRANSLATION

After following Her with great speed, Lord Śiva caught Her by the braid of Her hair and dragged Her near him. Although She was unwilling, he embraced Her with his arms.

 

 

8.12.31tasyāsau padavīḿ rudro

viṣṇor adbhuta-karmaṇaḥ

pratyapadyata kāmena

vairiṇeva vinirjitaḥ

 

TRANSLATION

As if harassed by an enemy in the form of lusty desires, Lord Śiva followed the path of Lord Viṣṇu, who acts very wonderfully and who had taken the form of Mohinī.

----

 

So Ganesh Prasad, do you accept the above verses given in the bhagavatam?

 

I have no problem accepting what you have quoted.

 

So the Lord is attracted by Mohini Swarup. Hara runs after Hari all fun really.

 

Now the question is do you accept this?

 

SB 8.7.33: Exalted, self-satisfied persons who preach to the entire world think of your lotus feet constantly within their hearts. However, when persons who do not know your austerity see you moving with Uma-, they misunderstand you to be lusty, or when they see you wandering in the crematorium they mistakenly think that you are ferocious and envious. Certainly they are shameless. They cannot understand your activities.

 

 

Jai Shree Krishna

[tackleberry]

 

Pranam

 

I have no problem accepting what you have quoted.

 

So the Lord is attracted by Mohini Swarup. Hara runs after Hari all fun really.

 

 

 

Bhagavatam doesn't say it's all fun (if so, provide verse number), it clearly says Shiva is overwhelmed by lust, loses control and runs like a mad elephant. Do you accept it or not?

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam

I accept

Now do you accept this

SB 8.12.39: My dear Lord Śambhu, who within this material world but you can surpass My illusory energy? People are generally attached to sense enjoyment and conquered by its influence. Indeed, the influence of material nature is very difficult for them to surmount.

 

SB 8.7.31: O Lord Girīśa, since the Brahman effulgence is transcendental to the material modes of goodness, passion and ignorance, the various directors of this material world certainly cannot appreciate it or even know where it is. It is not understandable even to Lord Brahmā, Lord Viṣṇu or the King of heaven, Mahendra.

 

SB 8.7.32: When annihilation is performed by the flames and sparks emanating from your eyes, the entire creation is burned to ashes. Nonetheless, you do not know how this happens. What then is to be said of your destroying the Dakṣa-yajña, Tripurāsura and the kālakūṭa poison? Such activities cannot be subject matters for prayers offered to you.

 

SB 8.7.33: Exalted, self-satisfied persons who preach to the entire world think of your lotus feet constantly within their hearts. However, when persons who do not know your austerity see you moving with Umā, they misunderstand you to be lusty, or when they see you wandering in the crematorium they mistakenly think that you are ferocious and envious. Certainly they are shameless. They cannot understand your activities.

Jai Shree Krishna

[tackleberry]

 

Pranam

I accept

 

Thank you for accepting that Shiva lost control due to lust. Now do you think an entity subject to flaws like lust etc. can be supreme?