Is Lord Shiva a demi-god?

[cbrahma]

 

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

It is an Indian thing not to be able to make simple inferences? I didn't say only Indians. I didnt' even imply it. But the controversy in this forum is especially heated among Indians who have very definite and differing views on the subject. And which Pamanas are you refering to and keep refering to? It is quite a mystery.

[Ganeshprasad]

 

And according to him, Ramacharitramanas is a pramana because 'Morari Bapu' said so. Talk about being dumb.

 

Talk about misquoting, you are a master in that, here I quote exactly what you wrote and my answer to it

 

 

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

Try telling that to Morari Bapu.

Now tell me where did I say, Ramacharitramanas is a pramana because Morari Bapu said it?

 

And how does Non-Vedic got changed in to pramana?are this two words interchangeable.

Typical style of logic only expected from your brand of philosophy which is for ever reconciling srutis to fit in with your little box.

 

I much prefer to be dumb who like to accept What Veda Vyasadev have given to us on face value.

 

 

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.

 

Typical case of quoting what we like but ignore later part which was highlighted here I quote again

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. Again I don’t mind being stupid for accepting the above.

Jai Shree Krishna

[Beggar]

So much duality is on this thread, and arguing over different angles of vision of the sastra and sadhus of various sampradayas. But the purpose of these statements by sastra, sadhu and guru is not that it become fodder for arguments. tarko pratisthanat, every truth can be established and subsequently defeated by logic. So what is the point? All these concepts are there to help the practitioner in their sadhana and ultimately develop bhakti and spiritual realization. Devoid of the real process the same words become nothing but empiric knowledge simply to be wrangled over by arm chair (w/keyboard and mouse) philosophers. The unfortunate result is that we will inevitably be lead into Vaisnava aparadha and then bury ourselves even deeper. If we wish to project our mundane egos, why not just play internet chess or some similar game?

[Dark Warrior]

 

Now tell me where did I say, Ramacharitramanas is a pramana because Morari Bapu said it?

 

I see, and didn't you argue that Rama worshipped Shiva because it is in the Ramacharitramanas?

 

 

And how does Non-Vedic got changed in to pramana?are this two words interchangeable.

 

Boy, are you confused.

 

 

Typical style of logic only expected from your brand of philosophy which is for ever reconciling srutis to fit in with your little box.

 

So, you reject the Shruti because it says Rudra is sinful? And only accept the Puranas?

 

There you go. Finally, you accept that your view is NOT vedic then.

 

Your primitive way of thinking shows that you don't even know one word of our literature. Smriti MUST be reconciled with Shruti. Otherwise, it is rejected.

 

 

I much prefer to be dumb who like to accept What Veda Vyasadev have given to us on face value.

 

Then explain why so many acharyas took trouble to write Bhashyas.

 

 

 

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.

Again I don’t mind being stupid for accepting the above.

 

If you had even read the Upanishads before, you would know what this means. Do you know how complicated the explanation for this is? How can you take it at face value, when Puranas state elsewhere that Rudra has fought with Vishnu? How can Rudra and Krishna fight each other if they are the same? Are you so blind?

 

Upanishads say, Sarvam Khalv Idam Brahma(n). It means, 'Everything is Brahman'. Does this mean we are also brahman?

 

No. It only means, Brahman is the indweller of everything. So, everything (Jivas, Asuras, Devas, insentient matter) is one in the sense that they all have Brahman as their essence.

 

This isn't absolute identity. It is RELATIONAL identity.

 

Therefore, Vishnu being the indweller of Rudra and Brahma, can call Himself, 'I am Rudra, I am Brahma'. Again, let me explain:

 

Aham Brahmasmi means 'I am Brahman'. This does not mean you are Brahman. The reasoning is, that Brahman is the indweller of the Soul, and hence, both the Soul and Brahman are referred to in this verse.

 

When I call you 'Ganeshprasad', I refer to both your body and soul. I don't have separate names for your body and soul. Similarly, since everyone is Vishnu's body, and He Himself is the indwelling Supersoul, when He says, 'I am brahma, I am Rudra', it means He is referring to Himself as present within the bodies of Brahma and Rudra. He doesn't have separate names for His body (the whole world) and the Supersoul.

 

This is the conclusion of the Brahma Sutras. If you don't accept this, you aren't a Vedantin.

 

Here is pramana for what I am saying:

 

yuShmaddattavaro baaNo jiivataameSha shankara |

tvadavaakyagauravaadetanmayaa chakra.m nivattitam || vp 5.33.46 ||

tvayaa yadbhaya.m datta.m taddattamakhila.m mayaa |

matto 'vibhinnamaatmaana.m drShtumarhasi shankara || vp 5.33.47 ||

yo 'ha.m sa tva.m jagachcheda.m sadevaasuramaanuSham |

avidhyaamohitaatmaanaH puruShaa bhinnadarshinaH || vp 5.33.48 ||

 

Since you, Shankara, have given a boon unto Baana, let him live, from

respect to your promises, my discus is arrested: the assurance of

safety granted by you is granted also by me. You are fit to apprehend

that you are not distinct from me. That which I am, thou art; and

that also is this world, with its gods, demons, and mankind. Men

contemplate distinctions, because thy are stupified by ignorance.

(viShNu puraaNa 5.33.46-48)

 

After defeating Rudra, Krishna says, 'That which I am, that you are'. This doesn't mean Rudra is Krishna, because here Krishna also says, 'So is the World, with all the Gods, Demons and Mankind'.

 

Therefore, Krishna is only referring to Rudra and the entire jagat in a relative sense of oneness. If Krishna had wanted to say, Rudra and Himself are equals, He wouldn't have mentioned the whole jagat in that sentence.

 

Ganeshprasad's theories contradict both Shruti and Vishnu Purana, whereas my opinions are consistent with them. Hence, Ganeshprasad is wrong.

 

And going by the same method, one can say with conviction that the verses praising Shiva in the Bhagavatam are indeed directed to Vishnu only. In fact, Lord confirms this in Santi Parva of Mahabharata. Therefore, stop quoting random Bhagavatam verses out of context.

 

 

And which Pamanas are you refering to and keep refering to? It is quite a mystery.

 

cBrahma, you are a striking of example of a soppy sentimentalist who simply refuses to accept the truth. Are you absolutely blind? I posted those pramanas two times for your benefit, and you simply ignore it, and ask for them again.

 

Here they are. Now, try to answer this, without blindly quoting Srila Prabhupada or Brahma Samhita for once.

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

[Avinash]

 

And going by the same method, one can say with conviction that the verses praising Shiva in the Bhagavatam are indeed directed to Vishnu only. In fact, Lord confirms this in Santi Parva of Mahabharata. Therefore, stop quoting random Bhagavatam verses out of context.

 

The context is that deadly poison came out during churning of ocean. Therefore, gods went to Lord Shiv and prayed to him. You are saying that the prayers are indeed directed to Vishnu. But Lord Vishnu was present nearby. Then, why did gods not go directly to Lord Vishnu?

[Dark Warrior]

Tell me something. Why does Krishna descend to eradicate evil? He could easily sit in Vaikuntha and snap His fingers, so that every evil person on Earth is destroyed.

 

Its because Sri Hari loves to mingle with Jivas and allow them to help Him. All Jivas wish to do service to the Lord. Hence, Sr Hari gives them a chance.

 

Take the Ramayana. The Vanaras and the Squirrels built a Bridge for Rama. The squirrels were so eager to help the Lord, that they carried sand in their tiny paws, although it was not really helping in the cause of building the bridge.

 

When the Vanaras saw that the Bridge was almost complete except for a few rocks, 4 of them carried one tiny pebble!! Because they all wanted to be a part of the Service.

 

Similarly, although Sri Hari can do everything by Himself, He allows His servants, the Devas, to help Him. Shiva acquired the chance to do Service to Hari.

 

It is sad that people mistake this great sowlabhyam (accessibility) of the Lord as a weakness. Tell me, Krishna mingled with cowherds. Does that make Him a mere cowherd?

 

Just like that, Vishnu is a complete avatar of Lord Narayana in Vaikuntha, who has come amongst the Devas to be with them. Does that make Him a mere deva? No. But many devas are often deluded by Him, and even they forget at times as to who He really is.

 

EDIT: In answer to your question why the Gods did not directly go to Vishnu,

 

Srimad Ramayana says:

 

'The Devas pray to Shiva. Shiva prays to Brahma. Brahma prays to Me (Vasudeva). I need no protection, for I am the refuge of all'.

 

It is an order established by the Lord. Everyone needs a Guru. And the gurus for the Devas are Brahma and Shiva. Hence, the Devas go to Brahma and Shiva only.

[Avinash]

 

Srimad Ramayana says:

 

'The Devas pray to Shiva. Shiva prays to Brahma. Brahma prays to Me (Vasudeva). I need no protection, for I am the refuge of all'.

 

What do you mean by Srimad Ramayana? Is it Valmiki Ramayana? If so, can you tell me the context in which the above verse is spoken?

[Dark Warrior]

A typo. I meant Mahabharata, not Ramayana.

 

Dude, if you want to worship Shiva, go ahead. I am tired of you asking question after question. Its clear that you are unwilling to accept the facts, as are so many people here.

 

You have Shruti and Smriti staring in your face, unambiguously declaring that Rudra has faults. That alone ought to be enough. Yet, its question after question after question. My solution - Stick to your sentiments.

 

First you ask me Shruti pramana, I provided you that. Then you ask me Smriti pramana, I provided that. Then you ask for interpretation, I did that. Then you ask why Shiva drank the poison and not Vishnu, so I explained that.

 

Its not worth my time reasoning with you or Ganeshprasad. When you feel up to facing facts, ask for it. Until then, read some literature to understand concepts properly. You cannot quote random verses and then say, 'Lookee here, Rudra is being referred to as Supreme!!'.

[Avinash]

I am quoting verses to show Shiva's supremacy because you are claiming that Vishnu is greater than Shiva.

If somebody claims that Shiva is greater than Vishnu, then I will quote verses to show Vishnu's supremacy.

 

You have quoted from Mahabharat. Does it mean that you consider it authentic? Do you treat whole of Mahabharat as authentic or some parts?

[Avinash]

I have already read Mahabharat. But I am going to read it now again with more attention. I will post in this thread after that.

[Dark Warrior]

First of all, you need to realise this:

 

1) Smriti is accepted only when it does not contradict Shruti. Shruti says Vishnu is Supreme. Hence, only that part of Smriti is accepted. In any case, all of Smriti except the Tamasic Puranas can be accepted, as they all only talk about Vishnu.

 

2) Vishnu's supremacy is the whole point of Ithihasas.

 

3) Stuff like Shiva Sahasranama are interpolations. This is not the conclusion of 'biased' Vaishnavas, but by unbiased historians. Notice, no acharya, even Adi Sankara has ever quoted things like Shiva Sahasranama. Only Vishnu Sahasranama has been commentated on.

 

4) Rama did not worship Shiva, nor did He compose Aditya Hridayam.

 

5) Therefore, quote something that is accepted by all schools.

 

 

I am quoting verses to show Shiva's supremacy because you are claiming that Vishnu is greater than Shiva.

If somebody claims that Shiva is greater than Vishnu, then I will quote verses to show Vishnu's supremacy.

 

This sort of stupidity exhibited on your part certainly reveals your ignorance of the sastras.

[guliaditya]

Respected Avinash/Ganeshprasad,

 

Lord Narayana is the supreme personality which I think u both also accept.Lord Shiva & Lord Brahma are both covered under the maya.

 

This divine illusion of Mine,consisting of the three modes of the external energy, certainly is difficult to overcome, but those who surrender unto me,they only are able to surmount this illusory energy.(7.14)

 

From this it is crystal clear that only when we surrender unto Sreeman Narayana we get liberated.

Hope u all have read Ghantakarna chapter. It is from Harivansh Purana of Mahabharata. He was a great devotee of Lord Shiva & wanted liberation.Lord Shiva advised him to surrender unto the feet of Lord Vishnu as he is the only who can grant liberation.

Hence it would not be wise to claim that Lord Shiva is supreme.

[Amlesh]

Might be all of you are right, but whoever might be the supreme. You are all putting Hari and Shivji in a difficult situation.

 

Not by quoting from here and there that you will be able to know the relationship between Hari and Shivji. It needs deeper means than that.

 

The day you'll realise the truth, that day there will be complete silence from your mouth.

 

Don't show your ignorance by opening your mouth.

 

This message is meant for all of you and including me.

 

Jai Sri Ram.

Har Har Mahadev.

[Ganeshprasad]

 

I see, and didn't you argue that Rama worshipped Shiva because it is in the Ramacharitramanas?

 

That I might have had at some point, but I request you to stick to point of discussion, your allegation was that Ramacharitramanas is Non- Vedic.

 

 

Quote:

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=12 width=624 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=center bgColor=#ffffff height=24>And how does Non-Vedic got changed in to pramana?are this two words interchangeable.

 

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 

Boy, are you confused.

 

Is it possible to get a straight answer from you?

 

 

 

So, you reject the Shruti because it says Rudra is sinful? And only accept the Puranas?

 

There you go. Finally, you accept that your view is NOT vedic then.

 

Your primitive way of thinking shows that you don't even know one word of our literature. Smriti MUST be reconciled with Shruti. Otherwise, it is rejected.

 

I certainly would not take lesson from you, on what is Vedic. Your way is saying, you can choose any colour so long as it is black.

 

Who said ?smriti has to be reconciled with srutis, otherwise is to be rejected.

 

Did Vyasadev say this ? Did he not know srutis when he wrote puranas? Give me a straight answer not your opinion of it.

 

 

Quote:

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=12 width=624 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=center bgColor=#ffffff height=43>I much prefer to be dumb who like to accept What Veda Vyasadev have given to us on face value.

 

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 

Then explain why so many acharyas took trouble to write Bhashyas.

 

I may ask you the same question, if only to be rejected, as Non -Vedic.

 

They all had their own reason, from their point of realisation, but I am going to use your own yardstick here, they can’t be any more Vedic than The maha Kavya of Tulsidas Goswami’s Ramacharitramanas.

 

 

 

Quote:

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=12 width=624 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=center bgColor=#ffffff height=62>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.

 

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Quote:

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=12 width=624 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=center bgColor=#ffffff height=24>Again I don’t mind being stupid for accepting the above.

 

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 

If you had even read the Upanishads before, you would know what this means. Do you know how complicated the explanation for this is? How can you take it at face value,

 

I just do if that a crime I blame Lord Vishnu for saying it.

 

 

when Puranas state elsewhere that Rudra has fought with Vishnu? How can Rudra and Krishna fight each other if they are the same? Are you so blind?

 

Yes I am blind, but that is my love for them both. Just think did Krishna play and fight with his brother Balaram, Did Parsuram wanted to fight With Ram.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

[Dark Warrior]

 

That I might have had at some point, but I request you to stick to point of discussion, your allegation was that Ramacharitramanas is Non- Vedic.

 

It is Non-Vedic literature.'Vedic Literature' includes the original Valmiki Ramayana. It does not include devotional works like Ramacharitramanas and Kamba Ramayana, which are products of devotees.

 

Tulasidas is a bhakta, and hence his work is devotional. It is not authoritative Shruti or Smriti.

 

Valmiki Ramayana does not contain any instance of Rama worshipping Shiva. According to Valmiki, Rama worshipped only Lord Ranganatha (Himself), who is currently residing in Srirangam.

 

 

Is it possible to get a straight answer from you?

 

And what is your point? I am arguing that Ramacharitramanas is NOT a pramana. It is not a vedic text, and it is not a pramana.

 

 

 

I certainly would not take lesson from you, on what is Vedic. Your way is saying, you can choose any colour so long as it is black.

 

Because you know nothing about the Vedas or the purport of our texts.

 

 

Who said ?smriti has to be reconciled with srutis, otherwise is to be rejected.

 

Are you even aware of the basic principles of Vedanta? Why do you think our acharyas went to great trouble to integrate Gita, Brahma Sutras and Upanishads with Smriti?

 

Shruti is apaurusheya. It is perfect, without flaw. The Puranas and Ithihasas are paurusheya.

 

Especially the Puranas, which were revealed by Brahma in his Sattvik, Rajasic and Tamasic periods. Therefore, the tales told by Brahma need to be measured by Shruti, to acknowledge its validity. Brahma in his rajasic and tamasic moods gives misleading information.

 

Veda Vyasa composed the Puranas for people to understand the essence of Shruti. So that means, the basic qualification of a Purana is that it MUST be in accordance with Shruti.

 

My interpretation shows that Srimad Bhagavatam is in accordance with Shruti. Your interpretation will make the Purana rebel with Shruti. Now, please use your brains and tell me, how does this make your blind beliefs correct?

 

You are hopeless.

 

 

Did Vyasadev say this ? Did he not know srutis when he wrote puranas? Give me a straight answer not your opinion of it.

 

Are you completely off your rocker? Vyasa composed the Puranas in order to make people understand Shruti better. So, how in the ever loving world can you even think that the Puranas can contradict Shruti?

 

A child would understand this concept, but you don't.

 

Let me give you an example. If Shruti says Rudra is sinful, and Smriti calls him God, then it means they are contradictory. And this would mean, these scriptures are not divine, but simply products of fallible men, because they don't say the same thing.

 

We believe that both Shruti and Smriti echo the same truth. Since Shruti is flawless and Smriti itself admits to having faults (Guna classification), it needs to be validated.

 

Why need Vyasa? The apaurusheya shruti declares it.

 

Chandogya Upanishad says this, 'Puranas, Ithihasas are the 5th Veda'.

 

The same Vyasa who compiled the Vedas also authored the Puranas. So, how can you, in your blind beliefs, even assume that the Puranas need NOT be reconciled?

 

And didn't Vyasa himself classify the Puranas as Sattvik, Rajasic and Tamasic? Is not Shiva Purana Tamasic?

 

The same Vyasa has also stated, 'I raise my hands and strongly state the truth - that there is no God higher than Kesava'.

 

Over the long history of Vedanta, every acharya has accepted that Smriti cannot be accepted if it contradicts the Vedas.

 

Ganeshprasad, then tell me, what world are you in? Do you think one can accept Shruti as saying something and the Puranas as saying something else? No. Both Shruti and Smriti are part of the same revelation and hence need to be reconciled.

 

 

I may ask you the same question, if only to be rejected, as Non -Vedic.

 

Shruti cannot be rejected because it was not even authored by Krishna. It is eternal. Smriti, however, is authored by fallible personalities like Brahma. Its validity needs to be checked.

 

 

They all had their own reason, from their point of realisation, but I am going to use your own yardstick here, they can’t be any more Vedic than The maha Kavya of Tulsidas Goswami’s Ramacharitramanas.

 

I see. So, you consider yourself to be above the acharyas, who have extensively studied Vedanta, and shown how Smriti also echoes the same philosophy.

 

I think a new 'Parampara' is in the making. What is it, the Ganeshprasad Guru Parampara?

 

Learn the difference between works of Vyasa and the works of devotees. I could write a Ramayana now and say that Hanuman killed Ravana and not Rama...does that make it fact?

 

Valmiki Ramayana was written by Valmiki in the Treta Yuga. Tulasidas' Ramayana was written in the 16th century.

 

Tulasidas' Ramayana is NOT accurate.

 

 

I just do if that a crime I blame Lord Vishnu for saying it.

 

Blabber away.

 

Understand, our scripture cannot be taken at face value. It is not so simple as the Bible. The Lord explains in Santi Parva that He can be meditated as the indweller of any entity, and specifically mentions Shiva.

 

The Vedas themselves explain how anya devata are to be meditated on. Brahman within the Sun is Narayana, within Indra is Narayana, within Shiva is Narayana. So, when the Bhagavata Purana addresses Shiva as Supreme, it means Narayana is being referred to.

 

So, tell me, a straight answer - HOW do you reject authoritative quotes from Shruti for your asinine beliefs? And even in the Bhagavatam, quotes like 'Narayana Para brahman' makes it clear that Narayana is highest, so Shiva is simply being meditated on as the body of Narayana.

 

Going by your explanation, we have to reject Vedas and Ithihasas, and even the portions of the Puranas calling Vishnu a God and exposing Shiva as a Jiva. You will only accept a few random verses quoted out of context.

 

This is NOT the purport of Veda Vyasa's works.

 

 

Yes I am blind, but that is my love for them both.

 

You admitted it finally. Blind belief is not pramana. Shruti and Smriti does not support your views.

 

Vedanta has three means of acquiring knowledge - Perception, Logic and Scripture. Ganeshprasad lacks credibility in all 3. He doesn't even know what the tradition of Vedanta is.

 

Blind 'love' has no place here.

 

 

 

Just think did Krishna play and fight with his brother Balaram, Did Parsuram wanted to fight With Ram.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

 

1) Shiva is not Vishnu. That he is a Jiva is supported by Shruti, and by Smriti, which shows him to possess some failings of ego and lust. Bhrigu judged him, if you remember.

 

2) Parasurama is an amsa avatar of Vishnu. He is not Vishnu, but a Jiva empowered with some fighting skills of Vishnu. Therefore, Parasurama may not be a perfect being, merely an empowered being.

 

3) Balarama and Krishna were playing around, but Shiva openly tried to kill Krishna in the Banasura episode. This shows that even the best of Jivas are often deluded by the Lord's potency.

 

That is why Krishna says, 'Fools contemplate distinction'. Shiva had thought Krishna was a person distinct from him. Krishna was chastising Shiva, reminding him that Krishna is the indweller of Shiva, and hence, shares that oneness.

 

Incidentally, may I ask if you actually bothered to read how I explained your quote, 'Vishnu, Brahma and Shiva are same'? No. You never read it, and never managed to refute multiple pramanas calling Shiva a Jiva and Vishnu the highest.

 

You are not only ignorant, but also irritating.

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam

 

 

It is Non-Vedic literature.'Vedic Literature' includes the original Valmiki Ramayana. It does not include devotional works like Ramacharitramanas and Kamba Ramayana, which are products of devotees.

 

 

Tulasidas is a bhakta, and hence his work is devotional. It is not authoritative Shruti or Smriti.

 

There is a lot difference saying something is Non -Vedic against what you explain now.

 

I am sure Tulsidas received far more hostilities in his time, the fact that his work of devotional literature inspired far more people and which continues to do so now and that without setting up any separate sampraday of his own, speaks volume. so it makes no difference if you call it Non-Vedic.

 

 

 

 

Valmiki Ramayana does not contain any instance of Rama worshipping Shiva. According to Valmiki, Rama worshipped only Lord Ranganatha (Himself), who is currently residing in Srirangam.

That may be so, worshiping himself make no sense.

but since we have Rameshvram speaks volume.

 

 

 

Quote:

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=12 width=624 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=center bgColor=#ffffff height=43>I certainly would not take lesson from you, on what is Vedic. Your way is saying, you can choose any colour so long as it is black.

 

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 

Because you know nothing about the Vedas or the purport of our texts.

 

I know enough to know that I can not agree with it.

 

 

 

Especially the Puranas, which were revealed by Brahma in his Sattvik, Rajasic and Tamasic periods. Therefore, the tales told by Brahma need to be measured by Shruti, to acknowledge its validity. Brahma in his rajasic and tamasic moods gives misleading information.

 

Again just you opinion, anybody reading this would be forgiven to think the puranas and lot of Hindu literatures is full of mistakes, why read it at all.

 

 

Veda Vyasa composed the Puranas for people to understand the essence of Shruti. So that means, the basic qualification of a Purana is that it MUST be in accordance with Shruti.

 

Do you really understand what you are saying here? Did he write any thing that is not in according to srutis? Was he prone to making mistakes?

 

 

 

 

Shruti cannot be rejected because it was not even authored by Krishna. It is eternal. Smriti, however, is authored by fallible personalities like Brahma. Its validity needs to be checked.

 

And not all of the srutis are with us so how are you going to reconcile every thing.

If Brahma is prone to making mistakes what makes your judgment of srutis and smriti perfect?

 

 

 

Quote:

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=12 width=624 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=center bgColor=#ffffff height=62>They all had their own reason, from their point of realisation, but I am going to use your own yardstick here, they can’t be any more Vedic than The maha Kavya of Tulsidas Goswami’s Ramacharitramanas.

 

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 

I see. So, you consider yourself to be above the acharyas, who have extensively studied Vedanta, and shown how Smriti also echoes the same philosophy.

 

You are good deflecting the point made, some how the bhasyas of your acharyas are all Vedic but Tulsidas Kavya (bhasya) Is not, he did not study srutis.

 

 

 

 

Valmiki Ramayana was written by Valmiki in the Treta Yuga. Tulasidas' Ramayana was written in the 16th century.

 

Assuming Valmiki Ramayan is with us in its pristine state, and I am not disputing it.

But Tulsidas never claim to write Ramayan his is writing Ram Charitra based on several source while Valmiki does not reveals Ram identity as god, Tulsidas is full of worship of Ram as god from the very beginning. To call it Non- Vedic I mean what can I say.

 

 

 

 

1) Shiva is not Vishnu. That he is a Jiva is supported by Shruti, and by Smriti, which shows him to possess some failings of ego and lust. Bhrigu judged him, if you remember.

 

2) Parasurama is an amsa avatar of Vishnu. He is not Vishnu, but a Jiva empowered with some fighting skills of Vishnu. Therefore, Parasurama may not be a perfect being, merely an empowered being.

 

3) Balarama and Krishna were playing around, but Shiva openly tried to kill Krishna in the Banasura episode. This shows that even the best of Jivas are often deluded by the Lord's potency.

 

Again you are sifting the goal post, you had contended that how can they be one since they are fighting.

 

 

 

That is why Krishna says, 'Fools contemplate distinction'. Shiva had thought Krishna was a person distinct from him. Krishna was chastising Shiva, reminding him that Krishna is the indweller of Shiva, and hence, shares that oneness.

 

So who are this fools?

 

Any way i am done here you can have your last word if you wish and good luck, sorry to have irritated you

 

Jai Shree Krishna

 

 

[Dark Warrior]

 

There is a lot difference saying something is Non -Vedic against what you explain now.

 

I am sure Tulsidas received far more hostilities in his time, the fact that his work of devotional literature inspired far more people and which continues to do so now and that without setting up any separate sampraday of his own, speaks volume. so it makes no difference if you call it Non-Vedic.

 

Straight question:

 

Valmiki Ramayana, written in Treta Yuga, says Rama worshipped Ranganatha.

 

Tulasidas Ramayana, written by Tulasidas in the 16th century, says Rama worshipped Shiva.

 

A baboon would be able to recognise which version is correct.

 

 

That may be so, worshiping himself make no sense.

but since we have Rameshvram speaks volume.

 

And where is the proof that the Shiva Linga in Rameswaram is consecrated by Rama?

 

None at all. It is not even mentioned by Valmiki. It is a later invention concocted by some people.

 

Rama acted as a human. And all dutiful humans worship the Lord. In order to complete His disguise, Rama had to worship the Lord.

 

Being the Lord Himself, He cannot worship inferior devas. He can only worship Himself.

 

Valmiki confirms it. No arguments.

 

 

I know enough to know that I can not agree with it.

 

OK. You disagree. Now, I would like you to attempt to refute Shruti.

 

- How do you explain Shiva being called a sinful jiva by Shathapatha Brahmana?

 

- How do you explain the fact that Shruti says Rudra is susceptible to Pralaya?

 

- How do you explain the fact that Rudra is called as a part of Narayana's creation, along with Brahma, Indra, Sun, Stars and Moon?

 

If you cannot explain this, your opinions are wrong.

 

 

Again just you opinion, anybody reading this would be forgiven to think the puranas and lot of Hindu literatures is full of mistakes, why read it at all.

 

The Matsya Purana, the Padma Purana openly state this Sattva/Rajas/Tamas classification. It is not my 'opinion' alone.

 

The tamasic and rajasic puranas are derived from the storytellng of Brahma in his rajas and tamas moods. Hence, they have mistakes. The Lord uses these puranas to delude asuras. Shiva explains it to Parvati in Padma Purana.

 

Sattva Puranas, when interpreted properly, agree with Vedas. They are accepted. But your interpretation goes against Vedas.

 

 

Assuming Valmiki Ramayan is with us in its pristine state, and I am not disputing it.

But Tulsidas never claim to write Ramayan his is writing Ram Charitra based on several source while Valmiki does not reveals Ram identity as god, Tulsidas is full of worship of Ram as god from the very beginning. To call it Non- Vedic I mean what can I say.

 

Valmiki wrote down what he saw. And who said he didn't call Rama god?

 

Tulasidas was a bhakta of Rama. He wrote it in a devotional mood. He didn't see Ramayana happening.

 

You are so full of nonsense.

 

 

Again you are sifting the goal post, you had contended that how can they be one since they are fighting.

 

Dimwit, Shiva failed to see that Krishna was the Lord. He tried to Kill Krishna and came as an enemy. How can you even compare it to the lilas of Balarama and Krishna?

 

 

So who are this fools?

 

Shiva, who failed to see Krishna as his own indweller. Hence, Krishna said, only fools make this mistake. However, later on, Shiva admitted his mistake and praised Krishna.

 

And anyone who can't see this, is a fool.

 

Next time, come up with some logic in your posts.

[kimfelix]

Straight question, Dark Warrior, what is the reference for Rama worshipping Ranganatha in the Valmiki Ramayana. You often seem to make very definite assertions about different texts without giving the reference so it can be checked. Do you have the reference for this one?

[Dark Warrior]

 

Straight question, Dark Warrior, what is the reference for Rama worshipping Ranganatha in the Valmiki Ramayana. You often seem to make very definite assertions about different texts without giving the reference so it can be checked. Do you have the reference for this one?

 

Kimfelix, you do not even understand that 'Rudra' in Svet.Up is not the Mahadeva, and you are questioning me of authenticity? That's pretty rich.

 

AYODHYA KHANDA

 

After Vasistha left, Rama took bath and meditated on Lord Narayana with undistracted mind along with his wide-eyed wife, Seetha. Taking the vessel with clarified butter on his head as per scriptures, he offered to Lord Vishnu the clarified butter, by dropping it into the blazing fire.

 

Rama ate the remainder of clarified butter after finishing the sacrifice, which he performed for his own good, silently meditated on Lord Narayana with controlled mind and slept along with Seetha on a properly laid bed of Kusa grass in a splendid temple of Lord Vishnu.

 

 

* The learned commentators point out that the deity referred to here is no other than Lord Ranganatha, who had been worshipped by a long line of rulers of Ayodhya as their chosen deity in a separate shrine built within the precincts of the royal palace. We are told at length in the Patala Khanda of Padma Purana how Rama so kindly handed over the image to Vibhishana; through whom it reached Srirangam (near Tiruchirapally) in South India; where it exists even to this day and is held in the highest reverence by the Vaishnavas and other devotees all over India.*

 

The Kings of IkshvAghu dynasty were worshipping Lord Sri RanganAtha with such utmost devotion that the Lord Himself longed to be born in that dynasty of Parama VishNu bhaktas. He resolved to be born as Sri Rama, the son of King Dasaratha.

<TT>In due time Dasratha wanted to install Sri Rama as the crown prince (YuvarAja paTTAbhishEkam). As advised by the Kula guru (Family priest) VasishTa, Sri Rama finished his bath and ablutions in holy waters and got ready for the installation functions, he straight went to the temple of Lord Sri RanganAtha to offer the customary prayers as detailed in the 6th Sargam of AyOdhyA khANDam of Srimad RAmAyaNa.</TT>

 

 

 

GathE purOhitE rAma: snAthO niyatha mAnasa:/Saha patnyA visAlAkshyA nArAyaNam upAgamth//</PRE>

<TT>The word ?VisAlAkshA? denotes how Sri Sita was enchanted by the pulchritude of Lord Sri RanganAtha which seemed to exceed that of Sri Rama himself!. The word ?nArAyaNam? refers to Lord RanganAtha. </TT>

<TT></TT>

<TT>There is no Siva worship here.</TT>

[kimfelix]

Dark Warrior, yesterday you cited a story from the Ramayana about squirrels carrying sand in the building of the bridge. In the Valmiki Ramayana the building of the bridge by Nala is told in Chapter 22 or the Yuddha Kanda, in verses 48-75. There is no mention of squirrels there. I don't know what the Sanskrit word for a squirrel is.

 

You must be more careful in citing texts as this undermines your credibility in debate.

 

You also cite a reference from the Valmiki Ramayana where Rama says that he does not worship Shiva or Brahma. Again I have some doubts as to whether this verse actually exists. Do you have a reference?

[kimfelix]

Do you have a Sanskrit verse reference for the quote? As I suspected the Valmiki Ramayana does not mention Ranganatha. This is derived from commentary based on Puranic accounts so your original assertion was a little disingenous. There are of course Puranic sources for Rama worshipping Shiva, but as you say this is not mentioned by Valmiki and you are right to point this out. But I think the same standards should be applied from both sides, otherwise it gives the impression that you are only interested in polemics.

[Dark Warrior]

 

You also cite a reference from the Valmiki Ramayana where Rama says that he does not worship Shiva or Brahma

 

And when did I say that? I said there is no mention of Shiva worship in the Ramayana, by Sri Rama. However, Rama does break Shiva's bow.

 

 

You must be more careful in citing texts as this undermines your credibility in debate.

 

 

Kimfelix, first of all, learn the basic etymology of the Vedas, before arguing with me. You don't even understand how 'Rudra' pertains to Vishnu. What is really the point of questioning my credibility, when you completely lack credibility yourself?

 

 

Dark Warrior, yesterday you cited a story from the Ramayana about squirrels carrying sand in the building of the bridge. In the Valmiki Ramayana the building of the bridge by Nala is told in Chapter 22 or the Yuddha Kanda, in verses 48-75. There is no mention of squirrels there. I don't know what the Sanskrit word for a squirrel is.

 

Whether squirrels were there or not is irrelevant. As far as I know, bears and monkeys helped in building the bridge.

[kimfelix]

My understanding of Rudra in the SU is entirely in line with most readings of the text. It is the overt meaning of the text. By 'do not understand' you really 'do not submit to my interpretation'; that's not quite the same thing.

 

If Chapter 3 of the SU is not Shaivite then there is nothing that could be Shaiva. It could not be made more clear.

 

And if I was completely wrong about that the point about the Ramayana is unaffected.

[Dark Warrior]

 

Do you have a Sanskrit verse reference for the quote? As I suspected the Valmiki Ramayana does not mention Ranganatha. This is derived from commentary based on Puranic accounts so your original assertion was a little disingenous. There are of course Puranic sources for Rama worshipping Shiva, but as you say this is not mentioned by Valmiki and you are right to point this out. But I think the same standards should be applied from both sides, otherwise it gives the impression that you are only interested in polemics.

 

1) That Rama worshipped Narayana is in Valmiki Ramayana.

 

2) That this Narayana is indeed 'Ranga' is mentioned in Padma Purana. The validity of this verse is that it has been quoted by Sri Vaishnava acharyas and nobody refuted them. In fact, even Gaudiyas accept it.

 

3) That Rama worshipped Shiva is in a tamasic/rajasic Purana. Hence, it cannot be accepted. Either it is part of Vyasa's tamo guna purana, or it has been interpolated.

 

Ranga is mentioned in a sattvik Purana.

 

iti uktvaa pradadou tasmai sva vislesha asahishnave

 

Sri Ranga saayinam sva archyam Ikshvaaku kula daivatam

 

Rangam vimaanam aadaaya Lankaam praayaat Vibhishana:"

 

To Vibhishana, who could not bear separation from Rama, Rama gifted His own icon of worship, which had belonged to the Ikshvaaku dynasty for countless millennia. Happy beyond measure at the unexpected and priceless gift, Vibhishana repaired to Lanka with the Ranga vimaanam, says the Paadma Purana.

 

These slokas have been quoted by commentators of Ramayana, while dealing with the gift to the raakshasa raja.

 

No-one has quoted any verse saying Rama worshipped Shiva.

[kimfelix]

My point was that you accused another poster of misquoting the Ramayana whilst doing exactly the same yourself. Sorry if my mentioning your credibility caused offence, it was tongue in cheek really. But having seen how you use texts to support your points, it does make me a little suspicious of the other citations you have given from Shruti and Smriti.