Is Lord Shiva a demi-god?

[Dark Warrior]

 

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.

 

Then, please explain other parts of the Veda:

 

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?

 

- How do you explain that Shiva & Rudra are mentioned as names of Vishnu in Vishnu Sahasranama?

 

 

 

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

 

There is NOTHING that is Shaiva, except the Tamasic Puranas. That is the opinion of all Vedantins.

 

 

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

 

Not so. You can't even understand that Shruti and Smriti don't endorse a religion called 'Shaivism', which is the reason why you keep arguing about Shiva being worshipped by Rama, or Shiva being called Supreme, etc.

[Dark Warrior]

 

My point was that you accused another poster of misquoting the Ramayana whilst doing exactly the same yourself.

 

When I mentioned squirrels helped in construction, it was not in debate. It does not have any bearing on philosophy or theology. It was merely an expression of Rama's accessibility. Since it was an unimportant issue, I did not care to check its source.

 

However, if you check this thread, I have provided sufficient pramanas from Veda, Santi Parva and Puranas to establish my facts, as well as proving that Rama worshipped Narayana and not Shiva.

 

 

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.

 

I use texts perfectly. If you notice, no-one besides Ganeshprasad and Avinash objects. All Vaishnavas have accepted my viewpoint, even those from other sampradayas (except Hare Christnas).

[kimfelix]

Rama's devotion to Shiva is discussed at length in the Shiva Purana. I am sorry I don't have a copy immediately to hand so I can't give you the references. In the Adhyatma Ramayana of Brahmanda Purana we find the following verse:

 

setum arabhamanas tu tatra rameshvaram shivam

samsthapya pujayitvaha ramo loka-hitaya ca

After building the bridge, Rama established Shiva Rameshvara there and worshipped the Deity for the welfare of the world. He then said,

(Yuddha Kanda, Ch4, v1)

[Dark Warrior]

 

Rama's devotion to Shiva is discussed at length in the Shiva Purana. I am sorry I don't have a copy immediately to hand so I can't give you the references. In the Adhyatma Ramayana of Brahmanda Purana we find the following verse:

 

setum arabhamanas tu tatra rameshvaram shivam

samsthapya pujayitvaha ramo loka-hitaya ca

After building the bridge, Rama established Shiva Rameshvara there and worshipped the Deity for the welfare of the world. He then said,

(Yuddha Kanda, Ch4, v1)

 

Brahmanda Purana is Rajasic. No-one has quoted it.

 

Shiva Purana is Tamasic. No-one has quoted it.

 

My Padma Purana version has been quoted. It is accepted as a Sattvik Purana.

 

Furthermore, Valmiki Ramayana confirms that Rama worshipped Himself (Narayana/Vishnu) and that Rama gifted this 'priceless family heirloom' to Vibhishana (Labhdhvaa kula dhanam Raja Lankaam praayaat Vibhishana). Thus, Shiva Purana and Brahmanda Purana are to be rejected.

 

Sorry, you have to do better.

[kimfelix]

Again you must give verse references for these assertions so they can be checked. Otherwise they might just be like they might be like the other ones you have given.

 

As you have probably guessed I don't regard the Shiva Purana as Tamasic. Could you tell me what there is about it that renders it Tamasic? Tamas is defined in the Gita very clearly but there is nothing in the Shiva Purana that fits in with that definition. Perhaps the verse from the Padma Purana is a late Vaishnava interpolation?

 

There are also many Shaiva passages in the Mahabharata. In the final two chapters of the Drona Parvan (172 and 173 BORI Crit Ed) and in Chapters 14 to 17 of the Anushasana Parvan (the Upanmanyu Upakhyana) we learn that Krishna worshipped Shiva. This is clearer evidence than anything found in the Mahabharata.

 

I am afraid I have to log off now, but I thank you for your attention and your learned contributions. It has been a pleasure to exchange views in this manner. More later perhaps.

[Dark Warrior]

 

Again you must give verse references for these assertions so they can be checked. Otherwise they might just be like they might be like the other ones you have given.

 

And exactly what 'other ones' have I given, which isn't authentic? How about pointing it out?

 

All the verses I gave can be checked. It appears as though you are the only one who simply can't accept them.

 

Tell me, who doesn't accept verses like Narayana is Parabrahman here? It is a common knowledge of Veda.

 

Total lack of knowledge on your part, and you put on a scholarly guise, as well.

 

 

As you have probably guessed I don't regard the Shiva Purana as Tamasic. Could you tell me what there is about it that renders it Tamasic? Tamas is defined in the Gita very clearly but there is nothing in the Shiva Purana that fits in with that definition. Perhaps the verse from the Padma Purana is a late Vaishnava interpolation?

 

I will tell you the definition of an interpolation:

 

1) It should contradict the theme of the scripture.

 

2) It should have not been quoted by any acharya.

 

However, considering this verse:

 

1) Calling Shiva Purana tamasic is ok, because it conflicts with Veda. Only sattvik Puranas are consistent with Vedas.

 

2) Acharyas have quoted it. Sankaracharya has stuck to only Vishnu and Padma Puranas, and so has Sri Ramanujar. Sri Madhvar also accepts this. Nobody questioned them.

 

Shaivites cannot accept this. Vaishnavites can easily accept it because it is just able to fit into the whole picture. Get it?

 

First understand what is an 'interpolation'.

 

Tamasic nature means denigrating Vishnu. Shiva Purana does exactly that. It makes Vishnu look inferior. Lord Krishna certainly explains that in Gita, 'Those deluded by atheistic and demonic views never attain Me, etc.'

 

It is not demonic to consider anya devata as worshippable. But it is tamasic/demonic to denigrate and insult Vishnu. Shiva Purana does exactly that. It was revealed by Brahma in one of his tamasic moods.

 

 

There are also many Shaiva passages in the Mahabharata. In the final two chapters of the Drona Parvan (172 and 173 BORI Crit Ed) and in Chapters 14 to 17 of the Anushasana Parvan (the Upanmanyu Upakhyana) we learn that Krishna worshipped Shiva. This is clearer evidence than anything found in the Mahabharata.

 

Now, again examine the evidence:

 

1) No acharya has quoted those verses.

 

2) Shiva Sahasranama has not been quoted by even the oldest commentators. Only Vishnu Sahasranama has been quoted.

 

Hence, those verses cannot be accepted.

 

And a general quote like, when Vishnu says, 'I am the Self of Shiva, Brahma' has always been interpreted as relative oneness, rather than absolute oneness.

 

 

I am afraid I have to log off now, but I thank you for your attention and your learned contributions. It has been a pleasure to exchange views in this manner. More later perhaps.

 

First, please understand philosophy and meaning of 'interpolation'. Then debate.

 

EDIT: Yes, Krishna worshipped Shiva. But in Santi parva, he clearly tells Arjuna that it was due to a boon He gave Shiva, and even then, He was only worshipping Himself as the indweller of Shiva.

[Dark Warrior]

Kimfelix needs to understand something - Vishnu is referred to as 'Supreme' by the Veda. Unambiguously.

 

He lacks the ability to understand that all names such as 'Shambhu', 'Siva' and 'Rudra' pertain to Vishnu alone.

 

Neither Shiva Purana nor Brahmanda Purana support Shruti. Only Sattvik Puranas support Shruti.

 

And without a basic understanding of this, he accuses me of being 'unscholarly'. Quite frankly, I am tired of all these people who can't understand the very fundamentals of debate.

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam Dark Warrior

 

It is abundantly clear from your abusing posts, your character reflect on what ever you are supposedly following, I am not going to lower my self to reach your standard.

 

There are srutis and smriti that extol Rudra as supreme but you will not accept that, at face value.

 

Instead you will spend lifetime refuting it with your opinions and bhasya.

and you will contradict yourself over and over if your two post below is anything to go by.

 

 

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

 

 

There you go. If you think Ramayana is a mythological story of a heroic man, then why would the author go to the extent of 'hiding' this hero's godly status, rather than highlighting it, as most poets do?

 

I am not into reconciling apparent contradictions where there are none, i read the verse as it is, so good luck.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

[kimfelix]

Actually 'interpolation' means a later addition to a text. That is the dictionary definition and the actual meaning of the word. The fact that a passage contradicts what is said elsewhere may possibly suggest that it is an interpolation but it is not the defining criterion. With a text like the Mahabharata, which has around 80,000 verses it is not possible that acharyas could have cited all of them so that is not much help either.

 

Anyway, the actual meaning of the verb to interpolate is 'to add to an existing text'; but you may reinterpret the word so as to give a meaning you find more suitable.

 

And if we are going to say that all the passages of the Mahabharata which praise Shiva as the Supreme Deity are not really Mahabharata, then there is no point reading it all. But that is a pity because it is a wonderful work and one that all of us can learn from in so many ways.

[shvu]

 

Actually 'interpolation' means a later addition to a text. That is the dictionary definition and the actual meaning of the word. The fact that a passage contradicts what is said elsewhere may possibly suggest that it is an interpolation but it is not the defining criterion. With a text like the Mahabharata, which has around 80,000 verses it is not possible that acharyas could have cited all of them so that is not much help either.

 

Anyway, the actual meaning of the verb to interpolate is 'to add to an existing text'; but you may reinterpret the word so as to give a meaning you find more suitable.

 

And if we are going to say that all the passages of the Mahabharata which praise Shiva as the Supreme Deity are not really Mahabharata, then there is no point reading it all. But that is a pity because it is a wonderful work and one that all of us can learn from in so many ways.

 

But that has been the position on Smriti for a long time. It is valid only if it is in line with Shruti or else, it is invalid.

 

Madhva back in the 13th century wrote about the problem of multiple Mahabharata recensions and the difficuly of finding authentic portions of the text. He completely discarded Valmiki Ramayana as a valid source for the story of Rama.

 

Cheers

[raghu]

 

As you have probably guessed I don't regard the Shiva Purana as Tamasic. Could you tell me what there is about it that renders it Tamasic? Tamas is defined in the Gita very clearly but there is nothing in the Shiva Purana that fits in with that definition.

 

sAttvik purANa-s are said to differ from the rAjasic and tAmasic purANa-s by virtue of they way they begin. All purANa-s begin with a question to a learned source and the answers to the question form the basis of the purANa.

 

The sAttvik purANa-s are said to begin with a relatively non-sectarian question or in other words a relatively open-ended question, i.e. "what is the highest goalwhat is the means to liberation?who is to be worshipped to secure the greatest reward?" In contrast, non-sAttvik purANa-s are said to begin with a question of rather narrow scope - "Tell me about the glories of Shiva," tell me about this or that devata, etc.

 

This is something I have read about in the commentaries of Vishnu-bhaktas in various traditions. From what I have read of the purAna-s it appears to be correct.

 

Note that merely being in the sAttvik class does not guarantee that everything within will necessarily constitute pramANa. As someone noted earlier, any smRti is only valid to the extent that it is consistent with shruti, and not valid otherwise.

[Dark Warrior]

 

Actually 'interpolation' means a later addition to a text. That is the dictionary definition and the actual meaning of the word. The fact that a passage contradicts what is said elsewhere may possibly suggest that it is an interpolation but it is not the defining criterion. With a text like the Mahabharata, which has around 80,000 verses it is not possible that acharyas could have cited all of them so that is not much help either.

 

And like someone said before, Sri Madhva detected various spurious verses of the Mahabharata during his times. He then composed a commentary on the real Mahabharata. And since Madhva's Mahabharata version is absolutely correct in its portrayal of Vishnu as Supreme (which is as per Shruti), you first have to prove Vishnu is NOT supreme in Shruti to refute this version.

 

You can quote all your references, but that doesn't make sense. Many publishers have released various versions of the Mahabharata. Some of these versions are ridiculous - like Krishna worshipping Ganesha, like Arjuna worshipping Shiva, like Ganesha writing Mahabharata, etc.

 

Sri Vaishnava acharyas like Vedanta Desika and Periyavacchan Pillai have quoted authentic verses from Ramayana. Desikar's Raghuveera Gadyam is proof of that.

 

So, simply naming the publisher is not my idea of a reference.

 

Vaishnavas have published eloquent attacks on these false versions, and to date, no-one has refuted us.

 

 

Anyway, the actual meaning of the verb to interpolate is 'to add to an existing text'; but you may reinterpret the word so as to give a meaning you find more suitable.

 

Makes you look foolish.

 

And in order to judge whether X quote or Y quote is an 'interpolation', you have to give sufficient proof to show it.

 

Shvu pointed out that Padma Purana calls 'Mayavada' misleading, yet no acharya has quoted it to refute Advaitins. Hence, it is indeed possible that this verse is an interpolation.

 

Take the earlier example. I proved that Shiva Purana's claims of Rama worshipping Shiva are false, and not in the Ramayana. This means, Shiva Purana is misleading, and is blatantly lying.

 

Padma Purana agrees with Valmiki and simply extends the story - that the Lord worshipped by Rama was none other than Ranganatha.

 

Now, tell me, why should Sattva/Rajas/Tamas be an interpolation, when it has been proven that Shiva Purana and Brahmanda Purana are misleading? This sort of misinformation is most definitely Tamo Guna.

 

First, give me proof to show this guna classification is an interpolation.

 

 

And if we are going to say that all the passages of the Mahabharata which praise Shiva as the Supreme Deity are not really Mahabharata, then there is no point reading it all. But that is a pity because it is a wonderful work and one that all of us can learn from in so many ways.

 

Sentiments. Again, there is just too much soppiness in this thread.

 

Prove from Shruti that Shiva=Vishnu, then we will see about accepting Smriti. As it turns out, you cannot.

 

Raghu has patiently explained to you about the Svetasvatara Upanishad many times already. Yet, you fail to see the point.

[Dark Warrior]

 

There are srutis and smriti that extol Rudra as supreme but you will not accept that, at face value.

 

And there are Shrutis and Smritis that call Rudra sinful, and expose his faults. Why don't you take that at face value?

 

Let me try to explain. Let us assume that you, Ganeshprasad, were born in 1970 or so. Let us assume that your parents named you 'Rudra'.

 

Now, we have Vedic verses saying Rudra is supreme. Does this mean, Ganeshprasad is the one being referred to by these verses? No. Because, long before Ganeshprasad was named Rudra, there was already a Supreme Being with the name of Rudra. This Being is the one Veda talks about.

 

Similarly, Shathapatha Brahmana shows that Rudra was the son of Brahma and that Brahma NAMED him Rudra. Hence, it follows that the vedic verses extolling Rudra are not talking about this Rudra.

 

'Rudra' means, 'He who destroys', 'Howler', etc. All these names are applicable to the Supreme Lord.'

 

Veda says the Supreme Lord is Vishnu/Narayana at various points. No birth or depiction of Vishnu as having faults can be seen in Veda. Hence, it is only Vishnu who is being praised here.

 

 

I am not into reconciling apparent contradictions where there are none, i read the verse as it is, so good luck.

 

Moron, Valmiki wrote down how Narayana came as Rama and hid His divinity. Only the truly devoted can notice it.

 

Saying Valmiki did not know Rama was god is enough to show your ignorance. Your wit needs some serious sharpening.

[indulekhadasi]

There is a difference between Lord Sadashiva and Lord Rudra, I hope we all understand that here.

[Baobabtree]

 

Similarly, Shathapatha Brahmana shows that Rudra was the son of Brahma and that Brahma NAMED him Rudra. Hence, it follows that the vedic verses extolling Rudra are not talking about this Rudra.

 

'Rudra' means, 'He who destroys', 'Howler', etc. All these names are applicable to the Supreme Lord.'

 

Veda says the Supreme Lord is Vishnu/Narayana at various points. No birth or depiction of Vishnu as having faults can be seen in Veda. Hence, it is only Vishnu who is being praised here.

Can't one then just argue that Whenever Narayan or Vishnu is talked about in the Vedas, it is a reference to Shiva being all pervasive, or the eternal-being?

[Dark Warrior]

 

Can't one then just argue that Whenever Narayan or Vishnu is talked about in the Vedas, it is a reference to Shiva being all pervasive, or the eternal-being?

 

A few problems arise:

 

1) The 'NAkaara' in Narayana is etymologically linked to Vishnu. Since Narayana is a proper noun, it cannot be applied to Shiva. Only Shiva can be considered as a name of Narayana.

 

Remember 'Narayana vidmahe Vasudevaya dimahe tanno Vishnu prachodayat'.

 

So, Shaivites will get stuck and will get this conclusion - that there are two Brahmans (Narayana and Shiva). This is illogical. And even Shiva as Brahman will not be supported by Shruti because of the following points, as below.

 

2) Birth of Shiva is mentioned. Birth of Narayana/Vishnu is not anywhere given.

 

3) Purusha Suktam identifies the eternal Purusha as the consort of Sri and Hri. Sri is Lakshmi. Hri is Bhu Devi.

 

4) Shiva is mentioned to be absent during Pralaya.

 

5) Shiva is also mentioned as being 'created' by Narayana.

 

Thus, Narayana/Vishnu is Supreme. Rudra is his name.

 

 

There is a difference between Lord Sadashiva and Lord Rudra, I hope we all understand that here

 

And where is this mentioned in the texts? Give me pramanas. All you have being quoting so far is that Bhagavata verse calling Shiva a Vaishnava. That could be any Shiva in any yuga, and not specifically th current Rudra.

 

There are 11 Rudras. Sankara/Sada Shiva/Isana is the leader of those Rudras. Isana's birth and his faults are clearly mentioned in the Veda.

 

Furthermore, 'Narayano Jayate Rudrah' here is in plural, which means, 'Narayana created Rudras'. So, all 11 Rudras are accounted for.

[Avinash]

 

Furthermore, 'Narayano Jayate Rudrah' here is in plural, which means, 'Narayana created Rudras'. So, all 11 Rudras are accounted for.

 

Is the 'a' in Rudrah short a or long a? If it is short a (like second a of Rama), then it is singular and if it is long a (like first a of Rama), then it is plular.

[Dark Warrior]

Look, you can refer it for yourself if you want. I am quite tired of this. Many Vaishnava scholars have published books on this subject, you can read them to understand this.

 

There are enough verses detailing Rudra's birth as Brahma's son, and his subordinate position to Vishnu, such as the fact that he gets his 'Rudra strength' upon knowing Vishnu.

 

Shaivites have this mental incapability to go beyond the 'Rudra is Supreme' verses. The reason why Shaivism is unvedic is because they simply reject or ignore key texts that proclaim the jiva status of Rudra. Only Shiva Purana is their claim to philosophy.

 

I'd advise people like Avinash to refrain from doing things such as this:

 

 

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 seem to think that debating over Vishnu/Shiva is a game or something, and from this quote, it appears to me as though you adopt a frivolous attitude to our scriptures. Vyasa did not give us a compilation of Shruti for you to play games with.

 

Understand, that proper knowledge of Shruti makes the difference between samsara and moksha.

 

EDIT: As an afterthought, and in closing, here is the quote you wanted. I finish off here.

 

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

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

naaraayaNaad brahmaa jaayate |

naaraayaNaad rudro jaayate |

naaraayaNaad indro jaayate |

naaraayaNat prajaapatiH prajaayate |

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

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

 

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

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam

 

 

There is a difference between Lord Sadashiva and Lord Rudra, I hope we all understand that here.

 

Although i might have slight different take on it, but it is not important.

 

here it is what you are saying

 

Mahanarayana Upanishad

ekavi.nsho.anuvaakaH .

 

iishaanaH sarvavidyaanaamiishvaraH sarvabhuutaanaaMbrahmaadhipatirbrahmaNo.adhipatirbrahmaa shivo me astu sadaashivom.h

 

XXI-1: May the Supreme Lord who is the ruler of all knowledge, controller of all created beings, the preserver of the Vedas and the one overlord of Hiranyagarbha, be auspicious to me. I am the Sadasiva described thus and denoted by Pranava.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

[Dark Warrior]

Ganeshprasad, your determination is admirable but once again, you are absolutely unaware of current events.

 

There are 2 versions of Mahanarayana Upanishad available currently. The advaitins follow a version that mentions consecration of Shiva Linga, and has an interpolation in the Narayana Suktam, 'Sa Hari'.

 

How can we say that your version is spurious? Simple. 1) If you add 'Sa Hari' to the Narayana Suktam, the metre becomes incorrect and rhythm of the hymn falls, 2) Mantras for consecration on Shiva Lingam itself is bogus, as Veda NEVER talks about consecrating deities. Only Agamas are authorities on that.

 

The other version does not contain any verses glorifying Shiva. This version is the one which has been commentated by authoritative scholars like Sayana. Even Adi Sankara was following this version. Only after the 17th century, have Advaitins started to follow the spurious version.

 

Here is an article on the subject:

 

 

At present, 2 different renderings of MahaNarayana Upa. are found - Andhra Pata and Dravida Pata.

 

There are differences in various lines and sizes of these texts.

 

Some differences are starking like those of Narayana Sukta and mantras for consecration of Linga.

 

The Dravida Pata does not have the mantras for consecration of Linga and the Narayana Sukta is read as :

 

"....devam aksharam paramam prabhum"

 

and

 

"sa brahmA sa shivaH sendraH, so(a)kshara parama svarAT" etc...

 

 

While the Andhra Pata contains the mantras on consecretion of Linga and Narayana Sukta is read as:

 

"......paramam padam"

 

and

 

"sa brahmA sa shivaH sa hariH sendraH ......" etc....

 

 

 

Now the question is : Which of these is the true Rendering?

 

The Advaitins of the present age follow the Andhra pata.

 

While VishishtAdvaitins follow Dravida Pata.

 

But the ancient Advaitins have followed only the Dravida Pata.

 

Anandagiri's TIka upon the vArtika on Sankara's BrihadAranyaka Upanishad commentary(3-7-3) says:

 

"na kevalam purANAgamAbhyAmeva so(a)dhigamyate| kintu srutyakSarairapItyAha etameveti| '''sahasrashIrSam devam vishvAksham vishwa shambhuvam| vishvam nArAyaNam devam aksharam paramam prabhum|''' "

 

 

From the above, it can be noted that Advaitins were following the Dravida pata in earlier days('paramam prabhum'). the Andhra pata is comparatively very new and has not been quoted/cited by ancient Advaitins themselves.

 

 

we can see some other proof as well. all such proof are from non - VishishtAdvaita sources.

 

Sayana a.k.a Vidyaranya was a great Advaitic Scholar who was a Sankaracharya of Sringeri peetam and he has written a commentary on Vedas.

 

Mahanarayana Upanishad forma the Tenth prapataka of Taittiriya Aranyaka and Sayana has written a commentary upon it.

 

Sayana Bhashya on Taittiriya Aranyaka has been published by Anandashrama press of Pune in 1898 A.D.

 

Sayana has followed only the Dravida Pata which is even today followed by Sri VaiSnavas.

 

In Narayana Sukta, the text reads as:

 

"sa brahmA sa shivaH sendras...."

 

note: 'sa hariH' is not there. hence it is a later addition made by some ViSnu dveSi and does not belong to the original text.

 

Sayana's commentary upon the above line reads as:

 

"brahmA caturmukhaH, shivo gowrIpatiH, indraH svargAdhipatiH"

 

 

 

Similarly, Bhatta bhaskara has also written a commentary on Taittiriya Aranyaka. In fact he is the oldest commentator on Vedas.

 

His commentary was published in Mysore Government's Oriental Library Series in 1902 A.D.

 

Bhatta bhaskara also follows only the Dravida pata.

 

once again, in Narayana Sukta, the text reads as:

 

"sa brahmA sa shivaH sendras...."

 

 

Bhatta Bhaskara'S commentary upon it is as follows:

 

"sa brahmeti dvipadA|

sa eva brahmA - sa eva sraStA, sa eva shivaH - rudraH, sa eva indraH - devarAjaH.."

 

 

 

Thus both the commentators follow the DRavida pata only. This is an ample proof in itself that Dravida pata is the original text of MahaNarayana Upanishad. also the Narayana Sukta,in particular, is also the same as the SriVaishnavas' rendering. This Narayana Sukta is an important basis for Srivaishnavas' philosophy as Sri Bhagavad Ramanuja says in his work - Vedartha samgraha.

 

 

Once again, the mantras for consecretion of Linga is NOT FOUND in the commentaries of these commentators keeping with Dravida pata. hence those mantras do not form a part of the Mahanarayana Upanishad.

 

the case ends there.

 

also, there is another glaring mistake in the Narayana Sukta of Andhra pata:

 

Andhra pata says:

 

"sa brahmA sa shivaH sa hariH sendraH, so(a)kshara parama svarAT"

 

now this Rk is in dvipadA gAyatrI chandas. each . must have only eight syllables.

 

but "sa brahmA sa shivaH sa hariH sendraH" has 11 syllables while "sa brahmA sa shivaH sa hariH sendraH" has 8 syllables.

 

It seems that the person(s) who meddled with the original text did not care about this. but this is a glaring defect as every Rk of Vedas will be in conformity with a particular chandas.

 

while the Dravida pata exactly follows the Chandas rules:

 

"sa brahmA sa shivaH sendraH, so(a)kshara parama svarAT"

 

here both the padas have exactly eight syllables each.

 

infact, the phrase 'sa indraH' is read as 'sendraH' by Veda PuruSa to abide by the Chandas rule or else there would be nine syllables in the .. Thus it is very clear from the above that Dravida Pata is the true rendering of Mahanarayana Upanishad. Let us follow the original text alone and not some text which is adulterated with human intervention.

 

(note:'sa indraH' is read as 'sendraH' by following the grammar rule:

"so(a)ci lope chetpAdapUraNam" )

 

Trust me, Vaishnavas have researched everything. Only Neovedantins follow such bogus versions of Upanishads, therby misleading everyone.

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam all

 

I am going to end my participation on this thread, for Brahman who is ever indivisible, there is no beginning and no end, So when some one quotes in the beginning there was only Narayan, there position will only rebound on them, how can there be "In the Beginning"?

 

My advise for those who want to quote Satapatha Brahmana please don’t go there, your logic will turns against your own premises when the full verses and the contexts are checked. For a start from what little I have read the Kumar who is given all those name is none other then Agni. If one reads chapter before this the 8 Vasus 11 Rudras and 12 Adityas have already appeared from parajapatis mind.if we were to read on, it does open up a can of warms, one would not like to see.

I am not in to cutting my nose to spite the face.

Jai Shree Krishna

[Dark Warrior]

 

Pranam all

I am going to end my participation on this thread, for Brahman who is ever indivisible, there is no beginning and no end, So when some one quotes in the beginning there was only Narayan, there position will only rebound on them, how can there be "In the Beginning"?

 

 

In the beginning, before every pralaya. It is true that time is cyclical, but beginning is simply understood to be the beginning before every shristi (creation).

 

 

 

My advise for those who want to quote

Satapatha Brahmana please don’t go there, your logic will turns against your own premises when the full verses and the contexts are checked. For a start from what little I have read the Kumar who is given all those name is none other then Agni.

 

 

Terrific, so we won't go there, eh? Ignore all pramanas.

 

That verse pertains only to Rudra. Not Agni. Ugra, Isana and Pati are clearly given. Acharyas have quoted this verse and established it as Shiva. Other verses that specify Rudra's absence during pralaya clearly prove it.

 

Going by your logic, then there is no need to assume that 'Rudra is Supreme' pertains to this Shiva only either. See how it works?

 

As it so happens, no acharya has ever adopted the stupid logic of this Rudra being Agni. Even the likes of Sayana stick to the formula of Vaishnavas.

 

 

 

If one reads chapter before this the 8 Vasus 11 Rudras and 12 Adityas have already appeared from parajapatis mind.if we were to read on, it does open up a can of warms, one would not like to see.

 

 

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

 

 

Rest assured, no acharya ever sees Isana as different from Shiva.

 

 

There is absolutely no pramana that says Isana is not Shiva. Bhagavad Gita, during the Vishwaroopa chapter, clearly quotes Arjuna as saying, 'I see Brahma and Isana'.

 

'Kesava' is a name that arises due to the fact that Ka (Brahma) and Isa (Shiva) are the limbs of Vishnu.

 

'eko nArAyaNa AsIt.h na brahmA na IshAnaH' (which say that Rudra did not exist in the beginning) also mentions Isana.

 

 

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

 

 

Here, the Upanishad makes it very clear that the Ishana in the above verse is only the Mahadeva Rudra. The Narayana in this verse is the indweller of Brahma, so there is no contradiction when we say, 'Rudra came from Narayana's forehead', or 'Rudra is the son of Brahma'.

 

 

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

 

Case closed.

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam

 

For those who are interested can read Satapatha Brahmana 6:1:3:1- 6:1:3:2:0 and form your own opinion.

As i said i will not quote the ones that hurt my own feelings so i will let that drop, but it is there if one wants to do their own research.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

[Dark Warrior]

 

Pranam

 

For those who are interested can read Satapatha Brahmana 6:1:3:1- 6:1:3:2:0 and form your own opinion.

 

Vedas are not there for 'forming your own opinion', you clod.

 

WE should follow the opinion of the Vedas, not vice versa. And the Vedas talk about Sri Hari only.

 

 

As i said i will not quote the ones that hurt my own feelings so i will let that drop, but it is there if one wants to do their own research.

 

Your incapability to understand the basic concepts of our scripture is remarkable. So, we will just ignore those pramanas because it 'hurts our feelings'?

 

No wonder Hinduism is ridiculed by outsiders. With representatives like Ganeshprasad, there is absolutely no hope of maintaing its dignity.

 

Here are the Shathapatha Brahmana verses, that Ganeshprasad thinks pertains to Agni, and not to Rudra.

 

.

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

 

Ganeshprasad, you need to learn the etymology of the Veda. Agni is also a common noun, because it can be interpreted to mean, 'The foremost person'. In that sense, whenever a Deva's prowess is being talked about, he can be called 'Agni'.

 

In normal convention, indra refers to Purandara, Agni refers to fire, Rudra refers to the Lord of Uma, AkAsha refers to the sky and so on.

 

The next level of convention is yoga (or yaugika artha). In this, the etymological meaning of the word is considered. By etymological considerations, deva refers to a person who is radiant, indra refers to a being who has aishvarya, agni refers to a person who is foremost, rudra refers to a being who causes the wicked to suffer, AkAsha refers to the Being who provides space for operation and so on.

 

This boy cannot be Agni, because Satapatha Brahmana goes on to say how this boy became Isana (Ruler), Mahadeva (Great among Devas) and attained control over nature. Because, veda already has said, 'Of Devas, Agni is lowest and Vishnu is highest'. Hence, it would be foolish to think Agni has this much power.

 

Get it?

 

In case you do not accept this explanation, it is substantiated further in Shathapatha Brahmana, which says, 'Skanda is the Son of Rudra, and the ninth form of Agni'. This proves that Agni here means 'Foremost Person'.

 

Answer a simple question - When you don't accept that this person named Isana, Mahadeva, Rudra, is born of Brahma, then on what basis do you think that the verses saying, 'Rudra is Supreme' pertains to Mahadeva?

 

To summarise:

 

1) Rudra is mentioned as sinful, and has a birth.

 

2) Isana, Mahadeva, Pasupati are the names Brahma gives to his son Rudra.

 

3) Since these Devas are attained by Tapas, they are referred to as forms of Agni. If you assume that this Rudra is not Shiva, despite his names as Mahadeva, Isana, Pasupati, then you have no right to assume that the verses saying 'Rudra is Supreme' pertains to your beloved deity, Shiva, as well.

 

4) Mahanarayana Upanishad clearly states that Isana-Mahadeva, with a Trident, and 3 Eyes, was born from Narayana. Therefore, this Upanishad clears up whatever doubts the Satapatha Brahmana may have aroused, as it explicitly mentions the birth of Mahadeva.

 

5) The Mahanarayana Upanishad (from the taittariiya) says that the Being, whom the wise refer as Brahman (tadeva brahma paramaM kavInAm.h), who rests on the Ocean (yamantaH samudre kavayo vayanti) is the parAtpara and explicitly says that there exists nothing beyond Him: ataH paraM nAnyad.

 

6) The Brihadaaranyaka too is niravakAsha: In 1.4.11, the birth of rudra is mentioned and in 1.4.12, it speaks of birth of rudrAs. Thus, the one born first must be the foremost of them, which is Umapati Shankara.

 

7) Subala Upanishad says Narayana is free of faults.

 

Conclusion - Rudra is a Jiva based on the evidence. Narayana is Supreme.

[Amlesh]

One thing is for certain, both Dark Warrior and GaneshPrasad are well versed with their Scriptures.

 

It's indeed wonderful.

 

Cheers my friends, keep on fighting and continue illuminating me.