Is Lord Shiva a demi-god?

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam

 

 

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?

 

Hara the Man Lusting After Hari the woman, if you call lusting after Hari a flow, so be it.

You will never understand this if you cant 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.

 

I repeat do you accept what Veda Vyasdev has written here, never mind what is written in Shiv Puran, i have not even gone there, nor will i ever do that to prove a cheap point.

 

 

Jai Shree Krishna

[mahak]

not demi, which means limited. Lord Brahma is the creator who appears to be the father of lord siva, yet lord siva is not counted among the conditioned jivas.

 

That he appears to exhibit lust is just as much play as the appearance of lust in Krsna. For one immersed in the world, still wripped up in bodily false identification, comments about the lust of Lord Siva are fully offensive. If a bonafide spiritual master uses the pastime to teach others of the dangers of the insanity of lust, there is no offense, but for one who is conditioned by lust to make the same comment, this is ludicrous.

 

Lord Siva is God. There is no being above him, not narada, not brahma, indra, ganesha, kumaras. Demi-god refers to jivas who have great possession of the six opulances, but not in full. Lord Siva has full range of all six opulences, and the only difference between himself and Lord Krsna is that Krsna places himself as the servant of Srimati Radharani.

 

One cannot know Siva by any means other than to become devotee of Krsna. By devotion to Krsna, one can differentiate between devotee and demon, and can see the relationship between Krsna and his unalloyed servants.

 

All Glories to Sri Parvatigar

[tackleberry]

 

Pranam

 

Hara the Man Lusting After Hari the woman, if you call lusting after Hari a flow, so be it.

 

My personal opinions or yours are immaterial here. What bhagavatam says is important. Bhagavatam is calling Shiva as one fooled by the Lord's Maya, and that his agitated mind is full of kazmala, filth. See 8.12.35 for reference. Now tell me, could this entity be supreme?

[bija]

 

 

Madhurya Kadambini by Srila Vishvanatha Cakravarti Thakura - click here

 

Those who desire to become one with the Lord are in a dangerous and suicidal situation, whereas those who perform devotional activities mechanically are not in such a precarious position, because they are able to relish a sweet and more intimate relationship with the Supreme Lord.

Because both Lord Vishnu and Lord Siva (Sadasiva) embody the same Supreme Consciousness they are nondifferent. However, both Lord Vishnu and Lord Siva (Sadasiva) reside simultaneously on dual planes of nirguna (transcendence), and saguna (material nature). The unmotivated and transcendental devotees worship only the nirguna Supreme Consciousness, while the sakama fruitive workers can worship simply the saguna aspect of the Supreme Consciousness. This shows the inherent distinction between Lord Vishnu, Lord Siva, Lord Brahma, and the jivas.

It is important to note that many Puranas propound the theory of Lord Vishnu and Lord Brahma being one. The analogy of the sun and the precious gem suryakanta mani, will help as to understand this oneness. In a sense, the sun and the reflected glory of the sun in the gem are the same. In some mahakalpas, or millenniums, the Supreme Lord empowers certain jivas to take up the position of Lord Siva or Lord Brahma. just as the jewel is dependent on the sun for its glory, Lord Brahma and Lord Siva are dependent on the Supreme Lord for theirs. This point has been confirmed in the Hari-bhakti-vilasa (1.73):

yas tu narayanam devam brahma-rudradi-daivataih

samatvenaiva viksheta sa pashandi bhaved dhruvam

The scriptures also state that if a person, after considering all these facts, adamantly equates Lord Vishnu with demigods like Lord Brahma, Lord Siva, and so on he is condemned as an atheist and an offender. The basis of this scriptural injunction lies in the fact that while Lord Brahma is generally an empowered jiva, Lord Siva at times is also an empowered jiva. Persons who have not researched deeply 'into this subject matter end up forming their own speculative ideas. They make such comments as, “Lord Vishnu is God and not Lord Siva”, or “Lord Siva is the Supreme, not Lord Vishnu.” They continue to say, 'We are undeviating devotees of Lord Vishnu; we do not care for Lord Siva”, and vice versa. Hence their inclination to polemics leads them to commit offences. Now, the only way they can mitigate their offences is to meet a devotee well-versed in this topic who is willing to instruct them properly. The confused can become enlightened about everyone's real position, including in which way Lord Siva and Lord Vishnu are qualitatively nondifferent. Such persons begin to repent of having committed such offences and sincerely take up chanting the Lord's holy name. In fact, it is this chanting that finally exonerates such people from their offence.

Some say that these sections of the Vedas do not carry the slightest mention about the science of devotional service, so they are fit to be praised and appreciated only by mundane scholars. Those who lash out with such caustic criticism against those parts of the Vedas that propound the process of empirical knowledge and fruitive action will have to appease, with reconciliatory praises, those who follow such sections. Additionally, the offenders must chant the holy. name to absolve the fourth nama-aparadha: blaspheming the Vedic scriptures and its corollaries.

One may ask why not indeed criticize those section emphasize empirical knowledge and fruitive action. The answer is because the scriptures are most merciful. By some unexpected good fortune if an offensive person meets a devotee who is knowledgeable about the Vedas, he will receive proper instructions on Vedic understanding. If the offender sincerely understands these instructions then he will truly appreciate the Vedas. Out of compassion for persons who are unfit for devotional service, who are duplicitous in action, and totally absorbed in mundane matters, the Vedas inspire them to become resolute in following its divine edicts, thus helping to uplift them. The Vedas benevolently draw these erring souls away from the pravrtti-marg (the path of worldly-mindedness) and towards nivrttt-marg ,(the path of detachment). Without having the realization that the Vedas are benevolent, and without possessing a deferential mood towards the sruti, one's offences cannot be mitigated. Thus we have discussed the prime cause of offences as well as how to absolve them.

[Dark Warrior]

This thread is actually quite funny. People simply become blind to pramanas when they see that its about their beloved deity, Shiva. That is why I have stopped arguing with them.

 

In fact, some people are unable to differentiate between Valmiki Ramayana and Tulasidas' Ramayana, which shows that its futile to continue debate.

 

 

Lord Siva is God...... Lord Siva has full range of all six opulences, and the only difference between himself and Lord Krsna is that Krsna places himself as the servant of Srimati Radharani.

 

Very Good. Pramanas please?

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam

 

 

My personal opinions or yours are immaterial here. What bhagavatam says is important. Bhagavatam is calling Shiva as one fooled by the Lord's Maya, and that his agitated mind is full of kazmala, filth. See 8.12.35 for reference. Now tell me, could this entity be supreme?

 

simple answer, YES

 

But why seek my opinion, don’t you believe Sri Vyasdev, when he writes , persons who do not know your austerity see you moving withUmā, they misunderstand you to be lusty.

 

 

Or When Lord Hari says who but you My Lord Sambhu can surpass my maya.

Or when Brahma says thus

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.

So don’t seek my opinion just listen to what Veda Vayas has written, for the last times do you have faith in Bhagvatam and what Veda Vyas has written?

Jai Shree Krishna

[tackleberry]

 

Pranam

 

 

 

simple answer, YES

 

But why seek my opinion, don’t you believe Sri Vyasdev, when he writes , \

 

That's the question I am asking you. Do you believe Bhagavatam when it says Shiva's mind is filled with kazmala as mentioned 8.12.35? If you don't, you don't believe in bhagavatam. If you do, you do NOT accept him as supreme. So which one is it? Don't evade the issue.

[cbrahma]

 

not demi, which means limited. Lord Brahma is the creator who appears to be the father of lord siva, yet lord siva is not counted among the conditioned jivas.

 

That he appears to exhibit lust is just as much play as the appearance of lust in Krsna. For one immersed in the world, still wripped up in bodily false identification, comments about the lust of Lord Siva are fully offensive. If a bonafide spiritual master uses the pastime to teach others of the dangers of the insanity of lust, there is no offense, but for one who is conditioned by lust to make the same comment, this is ludicrous.

 

Lord Siva is God. There is no being above him, not narada, not brahma, indra, ganesha, kumaras. Demi-god refers to jivas who have great possession of the six opulances, but not in full. Lord Siva has full range of all six opulences, and the only difference between himself and Lord Krsna is that Krsna places himself as the servant of Srimati Radharani.

 

One cannot know Siva by any means other than to become devotee of Krsna. By devotion to Krsna, one can differentiate between devotee and demon, and can see the relationship between Krsna and his unalloyed servants.

 

All Glories to Sri Parvatigar

I don't know where some Indians get the idea that Siva is jiva-tattva.

He is Visnu in another form. Does that mean that Saivites are Vaisnavas or that Vaisnavas should worship Siva?

[kimfelix]

The demand for Pramana is easily satisfied. The Shvetashvatara Upanishad is shruti and it is overtly Shaiva. There are literally hundreds of quotations that could be given from Mahabharata and Puranas that confirm the same point. The reason why Rudra is born from Brahma and his association with tamoguna is explained in detail in the Shiva Purana. I can't see any reason to presume that the Bhagavata is any more authoritative than the Shiva Purana.

[tackleberry]

 

The demand for Pramana is easily satisfied. The Shvetashvatara Upanishad is shruti and it is overtly Shaiva. There are literally hundreds of quotations that could be given from Mahabharata and Puranas that confirm the same point. The reason why Rudra is born from Brahma and his association with tamoguna is explained in detail in the Shiva Purana. I can't see any reason to presume that the Bhagavata is any more authoritative than the Shiva Purana.

 

Then please quote SU. The word 'shiva' means auspicious, doesn't refer to the deity shiva. And shiva purana is tamasic.

[tackleberry]

 

I don't know where some Indians get the idea that Siva is jiva-tattva.

He is Visnu in another form. Does that mean that Saivites are Vaisnavas or that Vaisnavas should worship Siva?

 

So you and your illiterate hippie friend-Mahaaak-know better than Madhva, Ramanuja, and several other vaishnava achArya-s, who opined that Shiva is jiva-tattva. Oh well....

[Beggar]

 

So you and your illiterate hippie friend-Mahaaak-know better than Madhva, Ramanuja, and several other vaishnava achArya-s, who opined that Shiva is jiva-tattva. Oh well....

 

<table><tbody><tr><td>Ādi-līlā</td><td class="m">Chapter 6: The Glories of Śrī Advaita Ācārya

 

 

</td></tr></tbody></table>Bhaktivedanta VedaBase: Śrī Caitanya Caritāmṛta Ādi 6.79

 

 

ananta brahmāṇḍe rudra — sadāśivera aḿśa

guṇāvatāra teńho, sarva-deva-avataḿsa

 

SYNONYMS

ananta — unlimited; brahmāṇḍe — in the universes; rudra — Lord Śiva; sadāśivera aḿśa — part and parcel of Sadāśiva; guṇa-avatāra — an incarnation of a quality; teńho — he also; sarva-deva-avataḿsa — the ornament of all the demigods.

 

 

TRANSLATION

Rudra, who is an expansion of Sadāśiva and who appears in unlimited universes, is also a guṇāvatāra [qualitative incarnation] and is the ornament of all the demigods in the endless universes.

 

 

PURPORT

There are eleven expansions of Rudra, or Lord Śiva. They are as follows: Ajaikapāt, Ahibradhna, Virūpākṣa, Raivata, Hara, Bahurūpa, Devaśreṣṭha Tryambaka, Sāvitra, Jayanta, Pināki and Aparājita. Besides these expansions there are eight forms of Rudra called earth, water, fire, air, sky, the sun, the moon and soma-yājī. Generally all these Rudras have five faces, three eyes and ten arms. Sometimes it is found that Rudra is compared to Brahmā and considered a living entity. But when Rudra is explained to be a partial expansion of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, he is compared to Śeṣa. Lord Śiva is therefore simultaneously an expansion of Lord Viṣṇu and, in his capacity for annihilating the creation, one of the living entities. As an expansion of Lord Viṣṇu he is called Hara, and he is transcendental to the material qualities, but when he is in touch with tamo-guṇa he appears contaminated by the material modes of nature.

 

 

This is explained in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam and the Brahma-saḿhitā. In Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, Tenth Canto, it is stated that Lord Rudra is always associated with the material nature when she is in the neutral, unmanifested stage, but when the modes of material nature are agitated he associates with material nature from a distance. In the Brahma-saḿhitā the relationship between Viṣṇu and Lord Śiva is compared to that between milk and yogurt. Milk is converted into yogurt by certain additives, but although milk and yogurt have the same ingredients, they have different functions. Similarly, Lord Śiva is an expansion of Lord Viṣṇu, yet because of his taking part in the annihilation of the cosmic manifestation, he is considered to be changed, like milk converted into yogurt. In the Purāṇas it is found that Śiva appears sometimes from the heads of Brahmā and sometimes from the head of Viṣṇu. The annihilator, Rudra, is born from Sańkarṣaṇa and the ultimate fire to burn the whole creation. In the Vāyu Purāṇa there is a description of Sadāśiva in one of the Vaikuṇṭha planets. That Sadāśiva is a direct expansion of Lord Kṛṣṇa's form for pastimes. It is said that Sadāśiva (Lord Śambhu) is an expansion from the Sadāśiva in the Vaikuṇṭha planets (Lord Viṣṇu) and that his consort, Mahāmāyā, is an expansion of Ramā-devī, or Lakṣmī. Mahāmāyā is the origin or birthplace of material nature.

[kimfelix]

eko hi rudro na dvitiyaya tasthur

ya imal lokan ishata ishanibhih

pratyan janams tishthati sanchukocha anta-kale

samsrijya vishva bhuvanani gopah

(SU 3.2)

 

I am sure there are ways of reinterpreting this text so as to get an alternative meaning, but one can hardly say that there are no Vedic pramanas for Shaivism when the overt meaning of this text is that Rudra is the one supreme lord without second. Other verses in the Upanishad confirm the overt meaning.

 

Why is the Shiva Purana tamasic. I have read it a couple of times and there is nothing in it all to indicate the influence of Tamas. A Tamasic person (according to the Gita's definition) would not find what they want in the Shiva Purana.

 

Is the Mahabharata also Tamasic? If not, what is the problem with citing it as support for a Shaiva position?

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam

 

 

That's the question I am asking you. Do you believe Bhagavatam when it says Shiva's mind is filled with kazmala as mentioned 8.12.35? If you don't, you don't believe in bhagavatam. If you do, you do NOT accept him as supreme. So which one is it? Don't evade the issue.

 

You are incredible, I have said all along I accept what Veda Vyasdev has given (all puranas) unreservedly, you on other hand are ducking and diving, and I am not even asking you from other source. Bhagvatam has clearly said Lord Shiva is Bhagvan, not only that, it says those who thinks Umapati Mahadeva as lusty are shameless.

You have quoted a verse, which does not really say he is not God, but you are asking me to reject him based on your twisted logic which is not really any different from non Vedic people like Muslims who accuse Lord Krishna as lusty having 16000 wife’s and stealing other peoples wife.

So tell me do you accept everything that Vyasdev has written unreservedly?

Let me guess, no because it want fit in your little box.

Jai Shree Krishna

[tackleberry]

 

Pranam

I have said all along I accept what Veda Vyasdev has given

 

Which means you accept that Shiva isn't supreme based on the Mohini, BakAsura, BanAsura, and similar incidents. Thank you!

[Beggar]

The aim of the Gaudiya Vaisnava siddhanta is to put one's mental faculties in a particular position to appreciate the inner moods of the Gaudiya Vaisnava acaryas such as Rupa and Raghunatha das Goswamis. The same is surely true for the Ramanuja and Sri Sampradayas etc. It is improper for those who identify with different bonfide sampradayas to sit around on the internet and argue over these differences. Best to just offer repects to each other at a distance rather than risk the inevitable offenses (aparadhas).

[tackleberry]

 

eko hi rudro na dvitiyaya tasthur

ya imal lokan ishata ishanibhih

pratyan janams tishthati sanchukocha anta-kale

samsrijya vishva bhuvanani gopah

(SU 3.2)

 

I am sure there are ways of reinterpreting this text

 

There are no 'many' ways of interpretation at all, except in the minds of neo-hindus. All interpretation must follow one rule and one rule only-it shouldn't contradict veda. And because veda says Vishnu is supreme, other texts must be interpreted in tune with Vishnu's supremacy, failing which we indirectly admit inconsitencies in the veda. And once you admit contradiction in the veda, any 'proof' you give of Shiva's supremacy would be invalid, because you consider the very source of this so-called evidence to be invalid and full of contradictions. It's that simple.

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam

 

 

Which means you accept that Shiva isn't supreme based on the Mohini, BakAsura, BanAsura, and similar incidents. Thank you!

 

What I accept is far from your mental concoction.

It is abundantly clear, you do not accept What Vyasadev says in Bhagvatam, What Atri muni realised, what Brahma is saying, what Prajapati prays, even what Lord Hari has said, or what Bhagvan Krishna says in Gita. Little wonder you want accept what Shiv puran has to say or for that matter From The Mahabharata, Anusasana Parva. All this given by Vyasdeva, so how much faith do you hold for him?

 

Jai Shree Krishna

[kimfelix]

The Shvetashvatara Upanishad is Veda; it is to be found in the Krishna Yajur Veda. So you might say that any statement contradicting the SU is contradicting Veda. I am not saying that there are inconsistencies in the Veda, but there may be paradoxes that are hard for the human mind to fully comprehend. After all, the Supreme is achintya.

 

You might look at it this way. If we find within the Veda a statement that Vishnu is supreme and then another that says Rudra is supreme, we might conclude that Vishnu and Rudra must be the same being or different aspects of the same being. In that way there is no inconsistency in the Veda and we can accept its statements as they are, without recourse to unusual interpretations.

 

This view is confirmed in the Mahabharata. Krishna describes Shiva as narayanatmako jneyah, to be understood as of the same nature as Narayana (12.328.19). And Narayana himself says to Shiva, yas tvam vetti sa mam vetti yas tvam anu sa mam anu/navayor antaram kimcit, 'one who knows you knows myself; one who follows you follows me. There is no difference between us.' (12.328.64). These verses are to be found in the Nara-Narayaniyam, a passage of the Mahabharata that teaches Vaishnavism.

 

There are other parts of the Mahabharata in which Shiva is said to be the source of Vishnu, Brahma and Rudra. It is here we find the explanation of how Rudra was born from Brahma; this Rudra is not the original Shiva who is the Supreme Deity but a secondary manifestation and it is this secondary manifestation that is associated with the the tamo-guna. In the Anushasana Parvan, Book 13, of the Mahabharata we find this prayer to Shiva:

 

yo asrijad dakshinad angad brahmanam loka-sambhavam

vama-parshvat tatha vishnum loka-rakshartham ishvarah

yugante chaiva samprapte rudram angat srijat prabhuh

'He is the Lord (ishvara) who from his right side created Brahma the creator of the world and from his left side created Vishnu for the protection of the world. And at the end of the Yuga the mighty Lord creates Rudra from his body.'

 

I am not trying to say that Shiva is superior to Vishnu, but just to show that there is pramana on which to argue that Shiva is not a demigod or jiva of this world. This was requested above.

[raghu]

 

The Shvetashvatara Upanishad is Veda; it is to be found in the Krishna Yajur Veda. So you might say that any statement contradicting the SU is contradicting Veda. I am not saying that there are inconsistencies in the Veda, but there may be paradoxes that are hard for the human mind to fully comprehend. After all, the Supreme is achintya.

 

You might look at it this way. If we find within the Veda a statement that Vishnu is supreme and then another that says Rudra is supreme, we might conclude that Vishnu and Rudra must be the same being or different aspects of the same being. In that way there is no inconsistency in the Veda and we can accept its statements as they are, without recourse to unusual interpretations.

 

This view is confirmed in the Mahabharata. Krishna describes Shiva as narayanatmako jneyah, to be understood as of the same nature as Narayana (12.328.19). And Narayana himself says to Shiva, yas tvam vetti sa mam vetti yas tvam anu sa mam anu/navayor antaram kimcit, 'one who knows you knows myself; one who follows you follows me. There is no difference between us.' (12.328.64). These verses are to be found in the Nara-Narayaniyam, a passage of the Mahabharata that teaches Vaishnavism.

 

There are other parts of the Mahabharata in which Shiva is said to be the source of Vishnu, Brahma and Rudra. It is here we find the explanation of how Rudra was born from Brahma; this Rudra is not the original Shiva who is the Supreme Deity but a secondary manifestation and it is this secondary manifestation that is associated with the the tamo-guna. In the Anushasana Parvan, Book 13, of the Mahabharata we find this prayer to Shiva:

 

yo asrijad dakshinad angad brahmanam loka-sambhavam

vama-parshvat tatha vishnum loka-rakshartham ishvarah

yugante chaiva samprapte rudram angat srijat prabhuh

'He is the Lord (ishvara) who from his right side created Brahma the creator of the world and from his left side created Vishnu for the protection of the world. And at the end of the Yuga the mighty Lord creates Rudra from his body.'

 

I am not trying to say that Shiva is superior to Vishnu, but just to show that there is pramana on which to argue that Shiva is not a demigod or jiva of this world. This was requested above.

 

I think the point Tackleberry was trying to make is that Lord Shiva was affected by lust and bewildered. Brahman does not fall under such influences; therefore Shiva cannot be Brahman, but rather must be a jIvAtman (at least according to that section of srI bhAgavata purANa).

 

I have seen references in the smRti-s that try to equate Shiva and Vishnu. However, I have also seen references which place Vishnu in an inferior position to Shiva and some that place Vishnu in the superior position. All of these references cannot be correct, becuse they are all logically irreconciable. Of the three views, the third one (in which Vishnu is considered superior to Shiva) has the support of sruti. I quoted Rig Veda to establish this previously.

 

I do not understand why on one hand some are willing to consider that Vishnu and Rudra are the same being, but on the other hand will reject the view that Vishnu is also known as Rudra and that there is a different Rudra who prays to Him. The latter is clearly supported by shruti and at least by some smRti-s. The first is contradicted by most smRiti texts in which Vishnu and Shiva are seen as separate beings. Recall that neo-advaitins, in an attempt to downplay the "polytheistic" character of Vedic cosmology, will often claim that the different devatas are just different forms of the same God. But this just opens them up to the charge of selective interpretation - they are, after all, ignoring the massive evidence that treats these different devatas as different, individual beings.

 

WHen one reads a story that speaks of two persons A and B who interact with each other, one is not ordinarily given to think that A and B are actually the same person.

[shvu]

 

I am sure there are ways of reinterpreting this text so as to get an alternative meaning, but one can hardly say that there are no Vedic pramanas for Shaivism when the overt meaning of this text is that Rudra is the one supreme lord without second. Other verses in the Upanishad confirm the overt meaning.

 

It really depends on interpretation. Shrikanta, a Shaiva [12th century] was able to interpret the Brahma sutras to mean Shiva was the Supreme Brahman. We also have Vaishnava interpretations which say something else totally. Smarta traditions interpret Rudram, chamakam, etc., of the Yajur Veda to be talking about Shiva.

 

 

Why is the Shiva Purana tamasic. I have read it a couple of times and there is nothing in it all to indicate the influence of Tamas.

 

Of course, you will not :-). The Shiva Purana does not call itself Tamasic. The accusation is made in some Vaishnava Puranas(they call themselves sattvic, btw) and given the history of hostility between the two groups, it is no surprise.

 

On the topic, the "Shaiva Purana" listed in the 18 major Puranas is actually the Vayu Purana. The Shiva Purana that is commonly mistaken for the "Shaiva Purana" is actually a Upa-Purana from the 11th century AD.

 

 

Is the Mahabharata also Tamasic? If not, what is the problem with citing it as support for a Shaiva position?

 

It is not tamasic. But to have a uniform doctrine, it becomes necessary to interpret several sections to mean something other than what they outwardly mean. Every doctrine has its share of interpretations. So you first draw a baseline such as Vishnu is the greatest or Vishnu = Shiva and then proceed to interpret everything that does not directly agree with your foregone conclusion. And then say, "Hey, look! my doctrine is correct because it is consistent!".

 

Cheers

[tackleberry]

 

The Shvetashvatara Upanishad is Veda; it is to be found in the Krishna Yajur Veda. So you might say that any statement contradicting the SU is contradicting Veda.

Which you're not following, are you? Let's see. The AmbrAni Sukta in Rg Veda, for instance, says that Shri, the Goddess of the universe, derives her power from Vishnu. There are multiple places where Vishnu's supremacy is mentioned. Now if we consider the Rudra of SU to mean the deity Shiva, one portion of the veda will contradict another. To avoid this contradiction, one has to accept Rudra as another name of Vishnu, so that shruti won't be self-contradictory. Your approach will put SU in conflict with other parts of Shruti.

[Dark Warrior]

 

Shrikanta, a Shaiva [12th century] was able to interpret the Brahma sutras to mean Shiva was the Supreme Brahman

 

Shvu, at this point, I would like to clear this up. There is speculation that a 'Srikantha' never really existed. A saivite advaitin by the name of Appaya Dikshitar in the 16th century wrote that Bhashya under the name of 'Srikantha'.

 

I hope I haven't confused this. Its either Srikantha or another Saivite that Appaya Dikshitar was impersonating as.

 

Similarly, Appaya Dikshitar also wrote Saundarya Lahiri, Shivananda Lahiri and passed it off as the works of Adi Sankara.

 

Appaya Dikshitar was defeated by Vaishnavas soundly during his times. He had a hatred for Vaishnavas, which led him to attempt to prove Shiva's supremacy. However, he himself admitted that he was unable to get past the NAkaara in Narayana, which, according to Panini's rules, would not be equated to Shiva.

 

In his later days, he became a devotee of Lord Varadaraja (Vishnu).

 

 

The accusation is made in some Vaishnava Puranas(they call themselves sattvic, btw) and given the history of hostility between the two groups, it is no surprise.

 

Look at it this way. If Vaishnava interpretation of scripture sees the sattva/rajas/tamas classification as natural and not an interpolation. Because Lord Vishnu certainly is known to mislead people at times.

 

Shaivites claim it to be an interpolation. So, for Shaivites, a contradiction arises. For Vaishnavites, there is no contradition. Hence, the Vaishnavite view is correct.

 

Its elementary.

 

 

I don't know where some Indians get the idea that Siva is jiva-tattva.

He is Visnu in another form. Does that mean that Saivites are Vaisnavas or that Vaisnavas should worship Siva?

 

So now, you say only 'Indians' think Shiva is Jiva. And tell me, what are your answers to my Vedic Pramanas?

 

Might I ask, where do you get the idea that there is such a thing as 'Shiva is Vishnu in another form'? Oh wait...you only know how to blindly quote Srila Prabhupada's translations.

 

Ganeshprasad's earlier reply to my post shows the incompetent goof that he is. He has completely ignored all my shruti pramanas, and the commentaries of all Vaishnava acharyas who have explained the Shiva episode, and clings to his sentiments. He mistakes the Lord Vishnu's desire to divide work with His servants as 'inability', ie, Shiva drinking poison.

 

Shiva prays to Brahma because Brahma is his father. Brahma offers his respects to Shiva because Shiva is more powerful than Brahma. Vishnu says, 'I am Shiva, Brahma' because they are His angas.

 

Ganeshprasad is incapable of understanding philosophy. That is the main problem. And according to him, Ramacharitramanas is a pramana because 'Morari Bapu' said so. Talk about being dumb.

 

He has also provided a pramana which quotes Vishnu as saying, 'Brahma and Shiva are Me just as the Head and Hands are part of the body', which proves that the Devas are angas/limbs of the Lord, just like us. And he thinks this pramana supports his theories. Stupidity at its zenith.

[shvu]

 

Shvu, at this point, I would like to clear this up. There is speculation that a 'Srikantha' never really existed. A saivite advaitin by the name of Appaya Dikshitar in the 16th century wrote that Bhashya under the name of 'Srikantha'.

 

It is only speculaton. Without evidence, there is no reason for us to conclude Srikanta did not exist. Dr BNK Sharma, the Dvaita scholar, accepts Srikanta as the Bhashyakara and also admires the quality of his work, though he would not agree with it.

 

 

Similarly, Appaya Dikshitar also wrote Saundarya Lahiri, Shivananda Lahiri and passed it off as the works of Adi Sankara.

 

Discussing Appayya here is a digression, but to add my angle, Advaita Sampradayas do not see things this way. Appayya and his descendants have contributed significantly to the tradition and he would certainly not have been held in high regard, if he lost debates lacking ability to defend his own doctrine.

 

 

Look at it this way. If Vaishnava interpretation of scripture sees the sattva/rajas/tamas classification as natural and not an interpolation. Because Lord Vishnu certainly is known to mislead people at times.

 

If you take the positon that the Lord misleads people sometimes, then it is possible that he was actually misleading the Vaishnavas. How does one rule that possiblity out? Anyway, here is the problem. Iskcon used to quota a verse from the Padma Purana which criticized Mayavada (by name) as a false philosophy which was intentionally delivered to mislead people. Yet Madhva - whose primary goal was to be as different from Advaita as possible - is silient about this verse. If this verse existed during his time, instead of writing pages of criticism, he would have simply quoted this verse and closed the case.

 

Knowing that Puranas have undergone several revisions over time and knowing the history of Shaiva/Vaishnava relationship, it is more likely that these verses are interpolations, just like the Mayavada verse or other Purana verses that popped up in Bengal overnight as evidence of Chaitanya's avatarhood.

 

Another key point that has not been discussed here is the origin of Shaiva sects. Vishnu comes from the Veda, but Shiva does not. Shaiva sects originated outside the Veda and eventually when they all came together to form Hinduism, Shiva was mapped to the Vedic Rudra at some point. From what I have seen, Shaivas generally do not attach much importance to the Rig-veda just like many Vaishnavas do not bother with the Yajur.

 

Strictly speaking, there is not much common ground for logical debates between the two groups. Most of these debates draw upon sentiments or from sources which are valued in only one group. For example on this thread, trying to determine the status/nature of Shiva by quoting Vaishnava texts like the Gita, Bhagavatam, etc., will not help much.

 

Cheers

[Dark Warrior]

 

It is only speculaton. Without evidence, there is no reason for us to conclude Srikanta did not exist. Dr BNK Sharma, the Dvaita scholar, accepts Srikanta as the Bhashyakara and also admires the quality of his work, though he would not agree with it.

 

True. That is why I said it is speculation. In any case, Srikanta's Bhashya is admired by Vaishnavas because its philosophy is Vedic. For instance, Vishishtadvaita or Dvaita is not necessarily Vaishnava. There are Shaiva Vishishtadvaita or Shaiva Dvaita Sampradayas as well.

 

Shaivites run into a major problem when interpreting the Vedas - The birth of Rudra, Him being mentioned as Sinful, etc. They try to explain that away by saying it doesn't pertain to this Rudra, but that is refuted by the fact that the name of 'Isana' is clearly mentioned.

 

 

Discussing Appayya here is a digression, but to add my angle, Advaita Sampradayas do not see things this way. Appayya and his descendants have contributed significantly to the tradition and he would certainly not have been held in high regard, if he lost debates lacking ability to defend his own doctrine.

 

Here is the failed attempt of Appaya Dikshitar summarised:

 

Appaya Dikshitar tried to infer the meaning "Naarayana Param Brahman" as "Naarayanath Param Bramhan" (Trying to prove that Para Brahman is different and higher than Narayana) But couldnt establish as in Maho Upanishdh the same is stated as "Naarayanaha Param Brahmaha."

Sree Appaya Deekshitha tried to the follwing and proceded from one to the other as mentioned below as he failed to achieve the objective :

1) Tried to Identify Siva as Para-Brahman(Siva-Parathva Vaadham) - Failed.

2) Tried to Introduce another Brahman or Paramathma Higher than Siva or Narayana. (Thureeya Vaadham) - Failed.

3) Tried to Put Siva and Narayana in the same plane.(Samathva Vaadham) - Failed.

4) Tried to identify Siva and Narayana( I-kiyaa Vaadham) - Failed.

 

 

5) Finally, he gave up and wrote a Stotra on Lord Varadaraja (Vishnu) and also wrote Nayamayuka Maalika.

 

 

I am not undermining Advaita Sampradaya, although I reject it as a path for salvation. It is Vedic, no matter what Hare Krishnas say.

 

The research work on the Vaishnava Status of Adi Sankara has been done. His work on prasthna trayam reveals that all along, he has only equated Vishnu with Saguna Brahman. There is no trace of Shiva worship in these works...in fact, he openly rejects anya-deva worship in his Gita Bhashya.

 

Now, Advaita philosophy does not consider the supremacy of a deity as important, it is true. But the opinion of Adi Sankara apparently was that - worship of Vishnu is most effective for Jnana, as compared to anya devata.

 

From the ultimate reality perspective, though he states that Nirguna Brahman is the one, from the perspective of conventional reality, Sankaracharya strongly supports Narayana and terms that entity as the one to be meditated upon.

 

Let me state references from the net:

 

6th chapter, last sloka : yoginamapi sarvesam madgatenantaratmana sraddhavan bhajate yo mam sa me yuktatamo matah

 

For this Sankara-bhasya - states: rudra-adityaadi parananam yoginam yaha

vasudeva meva.

 

He feels the yogi who meditates on Vasudeva is superior. Vasudeva is saguna and is not just in-dweller or atman since meditation is the form of bhajate -sevate, since for nirguna brahman 'seva' is not advised.The comparison is with Rudra, Aditya etc. which are saguna forms.

 

Further,

 

18th chapter in manmana bhava- madbhaktaha and 18-66 'sarva dharman parityajya'...

 

Sankarabhasya states : without 'surrender' to the feet of Vasudeva, one cannot attain jnana!!!

 

Further, let me quote the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad:

 

In the famous 'antaryami brahmana..... yah prithivyam antaro yamayati, yam prithvi na veda, yasya prithivi sariram......yasya atma sariram......'

 

Sri Sankaracharya could have said that an ultimate entity is the in-dweller and controller of all the 27 entities such as : earth, water, wind fire, jiva, etc.....,

 

He goes one step further and states: sah antaryamih narayanah (a step not even taken by other strong vaisnava acharyas!). Please note that by definition, the term narayana is used for saguna brahma, since creation, maintenance and destruction is meant by it. This is also the subject of brahma-sutras as per sankara-bhasya.

 

He has also only commentated on Vishnu Sahasranama and not on the other existing 'Sahasranamas' of other deities. Furthermore, he accepted the Vaishnava personalist philosophy (even our theory of 4 Vyuha manifestations of Narayana!!) as Vedic, although he disagreed with it, whereas he rejected Shaiva and Shakta as unvedic.

 

Advaita is accepted as Vedic simply because the qualification of a vedantin is this - he recognises Vishnu as supreme. The philosophy may differ. Adi Sankara was a vedantin in that sense. Therefore, Saundarya Lahiri could not have been authored by him. Only Bhaja Govindam, Lakshmi Narasimha Stotram, Ranganatha Stotram, etc...which are Vaishnavite works.

 

The reason why Advaita aligned with Shaivism/Anya Devata worship is because despite the former's authenticity in the Vedic tradition, it is still heavily refuted by personalist philosophies. So, reactionaries like Appaya Dikshitar gave Advaita a new direction.

 

 

If you take the positon that the Lord misleads people sometimes, then it is possible that he was actually misleading the Vaishnavas. How does one rule that possiblity out?

 

This is explained by the fact that the Vaishnavas are the ones who have realised that the Lord misleads.

 

Those who are Vaishnavas have less karma, so they automatically realise it.

 

Now, it should be taken this way - (No offense to anyone here, its just the only way to explain) - I have been graced by Vishnu, so I understand that He can mislead. Someone like Ganeshprasad, for instance, who argues against this, has still not achieved the truth because of Karma.

 

And you may ask - how do we believe what the Lord says about Himself is true? Well, we have the apaurusheya vedas, which are unauthored. We compare what He says with the Vedas. If what He says is in line with the Vedas, we accept. Otherwise, even His words are rejected!!

 

Even Krishna says in Gita, 'I am the knower of the Vedas'. He doesn't say, 'I wrote them'.

 

 

Anyway, here is the problem. Iskcon used to quota a verse from the Padma Purana which criticized Mayavada (by name) as a false philosophy which was intentionally delivered to mislead people. Yet Madhva - whose primary goal was to be as different from Advaita as possible - is silient about this verse. If this verse existed during his time, instead of writing pages of criticism, he would have simply quoted this verse and closed the case.

 

Unlike ISKCON, we don't accept the current version of Padma Purana, except for the verses that Sri Ramanujar has quoted.

 

Sri Vaishnavas believe that only Vishnu Purana and Bhagavata Purana are authentic and present as originally written by Vyasa, because these have been commentated on by acharyas who found them to wholly echo the Vedic Truths faithfully. Of course, the random verses quoted by Sri Ramanujar from Padma and Garuda Puranas are also accepted, but not the entirety of the Purana.

 

ISKCON has no understanding of advaita because they believe it is 'merging with Brahman'. Anyone should know that Advaita means 'Not two'. If you say someone is merging with Brahman, it means there are two entities, which goes against Advaita itself!!

 

 

Knowing that Puranas have undergone several revisions over time and knowing the history of Shaiva/Vaishnava relationship, it is more likely that these verses are interpolations, just like the Mayavada verse or other Purana verses that popped up in Bengal overnight as evidence of Chaitanya's avatarhood.

 

Right. But since the Sattva/Rajas/Tamas agrees with Veda, we accept it as the original verse. Sri Ramanujar has also accepted this classification, and nobody came to refute him at that time. Since you are an atheist, I shall not debate with you on that. I only have problems when people like cBrahma think their opinion is absolutely right.

 

 

From what I have seen, Shaivas generally do not attach much importance to the Rig-veda just like many Vaishnavas do not bother with the Yajur.

 

No. Vaishnavas have explained every bit of pramana. What portion of Yajur Veda do we reject? There is no such thing.

 

It is only the whole of shruti and smriti (sattvik ones) that speak of Hari's supremacy.

 

 

Strictly speaking, there is not much common ground for logical debates between the two groups. Most of these debates draw upon sentiments or from sources which are valued in only one group. For example on this thread, trying to determine the status/nature of Shiva by quoting Vaishnava texts like the Gita, Bhagavatam, etc., will not help much.

 

Cheers

 

It certainly is possible.