Is Lord Shiva a demi-god?

[kimfelix]

Dark Warrior is rather misrepresenting the citations from the Brihadaranyaka. Like GaneshPrasad, I would advise readers to look at the actual verses for confirmation.

[Dark Warrior]

 

Dark Warrior is rather misrepresenting the citations from the Brihadaranyaka. Like GaneshPrasad, I would advise readers to look at the actual verses for confirmation.

 

You are getting quite annoying. First, you misunderstand what makes a 'reference' and what isn't, then you misundertand what is a sattvik and what is a tamasic Purana, and lastly, you accuse me of 'misinterpreting'.

 

In the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad [1.4.11] describes the creation of the 'Shiva' as the presiding deity of kshatriyas: yAnyetAni devatrA kshatrANIndro varuNaH somo rudraH..' and uses the word rudra to describe shiva. It later describes the creation of other 10 rudras as presiding deity of vaishyas: yAnyetAni devajAtAni gaNasha AkhyAyante vasavo rudrA AdityA vishve devA maruta iti |

 

Notice the plural here 'rudrAH' and the singular 'rudra' in the earlier para. The point is that scripture refers to Shiva as Rudra.

[Dark Warrior]

Let me just say one thing - Shruti is absolutely clear on who is the Supreme Deity. Kimfelix does not understand the basic etymology of the Veda. According to him, Svetasvatara Upanishad is a 'Shaivite Text' because it says Rudra is the Supreme Being. Both Sri Ramanujacharya and Sri Madhvacharya have used the pramanas that I have.

 

So, according to Kimfelix, considering Shiva Purana as tamasic and interpreting Brihadaranyaka the Vaishnavite way is a 'misinterpretation'. This, coming from a guy who thinks Krishna is not a 'Vedic God'!!

 

So far, the persons who have argued wih me are Ganesprasad (Who thinks Ramacharitramanas is a Pramana), Avinash (who plays games with scripture) and Kimfelix (Who lacks the basic knowledge of etymology).

 

In some places Veda calls Rudra as supreme. In other places, Veda calls Rudra as a part of creaton. We believe that Shruti is consistent in all portions and hence the reconciliation occurs if we follow the etymology as suggested by the laws of sanskrit, and use our brains to apply them wherever it seems fit.

[guliaditya]

It is my humble request not to drag Goswami Tulsidasji & his devotional work "Ramcharitamanas" in this debate.It is not logical also to quote from Ramcharitamanas.

 

Pranaam

[Dark Warrior]

I didn't say Ramacharitramanas is bad. I love it myself, great piece of devotional literature.

 

But asserting that Rama worshipped Shiva just because Tulasidas said so, is not a pramana.

[Amlesh]

 

I didn't say Ramacharitramanas is bad. I love it myself, great piece of devotional literature.

 

But asserting that Rama worshipped Shiva just because Tulasidas said so, is not a pramana.

 

Yes, Ram did worship Shiva.

Whatever, Tulsidasji has said is authentic.

 

And remember, the Great Saint also said, our Dear Ram is the Supreme Brahman.

[Dark Warrior]

There you go. Proves my point.

 

Like I said, it is completely useless arguing with people who are unaware of even the definition of the word 'Pramana'.

[guliaditya]

Respected Amlesh,

 

As per Ramcharitmanas Lord Rama wanted to install Shiva linga as Lord Shiva was very dear to him.

I accept with Dark warriorji as far as praman are concerned.Divya Prabandham written by great Alvars or literature of other great devotees can't be quoted for praman as it is a work of devotion.

As stated in Mahabharata "If there is contradiction between Shruti,Itihaas & purana then Shruti should be taken as pramaan.Similarly if there is a contradiction between Itihaas & purana then Itihaas should be taken as praman.But in all the case shruti should be considered".

 

Pranaam

[Amlesh]

 

Respected Amlesh,

 

As per Ramcharitmanas Lord Rama wanted to install Shiva linga as Lord Shiva was very dear to him.

I accept with Dark warriorji as far as praman are concerned.Divya Prabandham written by great Alvars or literature of other great devotees can't be quoted for praman as it is a work of devotion.

As stated in Mahabharata "If there is contradiction between Shruti,Itihaas & purana then Shruti should be taken as pramaan.Similarly if there is a contradiction between Itihaas & purana then Itihaas should be taken as praman.But in all the case shruti should be considered".

 

Pranaam

 

Thank you very much for the insight guliaditya.

 

I won't deny what you've said, which I totally agree. But remember Sri Ram is known as Maryada Purushottam. He took birth to show how a man should act. Like a man, though being the Supreme, he showed respect to Shiva.

 

If he wouldn't have done that, common man would have not shown respect to the Dearest of Devotee.

 

If a pure devotee has written Smriti, it can never contradict Shruti.

 

And Goswami Tulsidas needs no introduction in that respect.

[Avinash]

In Mahabharat it is written that Krsna prayed to Shiva and as a result got Samb as son.

It is also written in Mahabharat that Bhisma tells Yudhisthira that Krsna got powers from Shiva.

[Dark Warrior]

Easily explained.

 

1) Varaha Purana explains that Shiva had asked the Supreme Lord Krishna for a boon, that Krishna would worship Shiva for something. Krishna fulfills it.

 

In the Santi Parva, however, Arjuna asks Krishna, 'When you are the Supreme Being, why did you worship Shiva?', Krishna tells Arjuna, 'I did not worship Shiva, but rather, the indweller within Shiva, who is Myself. If I did not keep my word and fulfill my boon to Shiva, nobody will trust Me.'

 

2) The Shiva Sahasranama, and the little thing about Bhishma telling Arjuna that Krishna is subiordinate to Shiva, has not been quoted by ANY scholar from ancient times. Therefore, all mordern scholars have rejected it as an interpolation by some zealous Shaivite.

 

However, the Vishnu Sahasranama is the authentic conversation between Bhishma and Yudhishtira. Which clearly says, 'Vishnu is Supreme'.

[Amlesh]

 

Easily explained.

 

1) Varaha Purana explains that Shiva had asked the Supreme Lord Krishna for a boon, that Krishna would worship Shiva for something. Krishna fulfills it.

 

In the Santi Parva, however, Arjuna asks Krishna, 'When you are the Supreme Being, why did you worship Shiva?', Krishna tells Arjuna, 'I did not worship Shiva, but rather, the indweller within Shiva, who is Myself. If I did not keep my word and fulfill my boon to Shiva, nobody will trust Me.'

 

2) The Shiva Sahasranama, and the little thing about Bhishma telling Arjuna that Krishna is subiordinate to Shiva, has not been quoted by ANY scholar from ancient times. Therefore, all mordern scholars have rejected it as an interpolation by some zealous Shaivite.

 

However, the Vishnu Sahasranama is the authentic conversation between Bhishma and Yudhishtira. Which clearly says, 'Vishnu is Supreme'.

 

About the supremacy of Vishnu, we don't have any doubt Dark Warrior. But the way you deal with it is not appropriate, though all your evidence might be right.

 

You are aware of so many facts but still you didn't understand that the topic of Supremacy between Hari and Shiva should not be dealt.

[Dark Warrior]

I don't think there can be any objections. Shathapatha Brahmana establishes that Rudra has a birth, and is sinful. Verses from the Vedas indicate that Rudra is absent during Pralaya, that he gets his strength from Vishnu, that he is born of Narayana (and Brahma), that he lacks complete knowledge, etc.

 

Hence, wherever Rudra is praised as Supreme, its logical to either attribute his name to Vishnu, the unborn, or attribute it as a praise to the indweller of Rudra's atma (Who is Vishnu as well).

 

So, only the Vaishnava viewpoint is able to explain every bit of Shruti. If you want to claim our viewpoint is wrong, first, you must go and look at how Shavites completely ignore all these portions, and simply adhere to Sri Rudram Chamakam.

 

Take the words of Sri Krishna from the Santi Parva. This is quite authentic, and no amount of interpreting can hange the purport of the message.

 

Reference: Shanti Parva of Mahabharata. Verses 12.328.5 onwards have been quoted by both Sri Vedanta Desikar of the Sri Vaishnava sampradaya, I believe and by Dvaitins as well. Sri Ramanujar never needed to prove the supremacy of Vishnu much in his times, because even advaitins of those times were jnanis enough to know this fact. Only mordern day hindus persist in this asinine practice of calling all gods as equals.

 

 

Arjuna uvAcha

 

bhagavanbhUtabhavyesha sarvabhUtasR^igavyaya

lokadhAma jagannAtha lokAnAm abhayaprada

yAni nAmAni te devakIrtitAni maharShibhiH

vedeShu sapurANeShu yAni guhyAni karmabhiH

teShAM niruktaM tvatto.ahaM shrotumichChAmi keshava

na hyanyo vartayennAmnAM niruktaM tvAmR^ite prabho

 

Addressing the Lord, Arjuna says, O Lord Keshava, the Lord of Past and

future, the Creator of All, the Changeless Being, the Supporter and

indweller of the universe, the Lord of the universe and grantor of refuge to

[all the deserving beings of] the universe, I wish to know the etymology of

your names, which are extolled by [the Devas and] the Maharishis, which are

in the Vedas and the Puranas and are hidden from the [undeserving beings]

and beyond the reach of actions. There does not exist a greater truth or

divine law apart from the true meaning of your names, my Lord.

 

shrIbhagavAn uvAcha

 

R^igvede sayajurvede tathaivAtharva sAmasu

purANe sopaniShade tathaiva jyotiShe.arjuna

sA~Nkhye cha yogashAstre cha Ayurvede tathaiva cha

bahUni mama nAmAni kIrtitAni maharShibhiH

 

The Lord says:

 

My names are sung by the Maharishis in the RgVeda, YajurVeda, Atharvaveda,

Samaveda, in the purANa, in the Upanishad(**Any idea why the singular is

used?**), in the Jyotish Vidya, in the Sankhya, in the Yogashastra, and in

the Ayurveda(!).

 

gaunAni tatra nAmAni karmajAni cha kAni chit

niruktaM karmajAnAM cha shR^iNuShva prayato.anagha

kathyamAnaM mayA tAta tvaM hi me.ardhaM smR^itaH purA

 

O Destroyer of opponents, in those texts, some names are indicative of my

qualities (Gunas), while some extol my actions. Listen to the etymology of

these names. Earlier, I have told some of these to you.

 

namo.ati yashase tasmai dehinAM paramAtmane

nArAyaNAya vishvAya nirguNAya guNAtmane

yasya prasAdajo brahmA rudrashcha krodhasambhavaH

yo.asau yonirhi sarvasya sthAvarasya charasya cha

astAdasha guNaM yattatsattvaM sattvavatAM vara

 

Glories to the extremely famous, the Paramatma Narayana, who is nirguna

(devoid of prakritic attributes) and full of auspicious qualities. Glories

to that Being, out of whose grace was Brahma born and out of whose anger was

Rudra born; Glories to Him who is the origin of all; the moving and

stationery. Glories to Him, who has the eighteen excellent virtues and who

is the true essence and strength of all living beings.

 

prakR^itiH sA parA mahyaM rodasI yogadhAriNI

R^itA satyAmarAjayyA lokAnAmAtmasa~nj~nitA

tasmAtsarvAH pravartante sarga pralaya vikriyAH

 

Everything; creation, destruction and all other changes; arises out of the

Prakriti (Lakshmi), Who is the wife of Narayana. [Among all dependent

beings], she is the most knowledgeable, effulgent, powerful and victorious.

She does all this with my grace and she is known as "AtmA" of the entire

universe [after Paramatma] (as she appoints and manages Brahma, Rudra and other deities as per the command of the Lord).

 

 

tato yaGYashcha yaShTA cha purANaH puruSho virAt

aniruddha iti prokto lokAnAM prabhavApyayaH

 

Thus such Lord is spoken of as yaj~na (the worship) and the worshipper. (God takes all the fruits of yaj~na and He instigates the worshipper.) He is the most ancient (anAdi and controller of all) and greatest one. No one is His Lord and He is unstoppable. He is the creator and annihilator of all the

worlds.

 

brAhme rAtrikShaye prApte tasya hyamitatejasaH

prasAdAtprAdurabhavatpadmaM padmanibhekShaNa

tatra brahmA samabhavatsa tasyaiva prasAdajaH

 

In the Brahma muhurta, at the end of the night, due to the mercy of the

extremely brilliant Lord, a lotus emerged from His navel and in that lotus,

Brahma was born, ofcourse, due to His grace.

 

ahnaH kShaye lalAtAchcha suto devasya vai tathA

krodhAviShTasya sa~njaGYe rudraH saMhAra kArakaH

etau dvau vibudhashreShThau prasAdakrodhajau smR^itau

 

At the end of the day, the Lord [present as antaryAmi of Brahma *] created Rudra out of Krodha-guNa, to enable him to be the 'samhAra-kartA'. Thus, these two 'fine-among-wise', Brahma and Rudra, are known to have been born out of grace and anger respectively.

 

*: This interpretation is necessary because in the later sections of

Moxadharma, Brahma addresses Rudra as a son.

 

tadAdeshita panthAnau sR^iShTi saMhAra kArakau

nimittamAtraM tAvatra sarvaprAni varapradau

 

Thus, they carry out the instructed tasks of creation and destruction.

However, they, the givers of boons to all the creatures, are just the

agents.

 

kapardI jatilo mundaH shmashAnagR^ihasevakaH

ugravratadharo rudro yogI tripuradAruNaH

dakShakratuharashchaiva bhaga netraharastathA

 

[Rudra has] braided hair with knot of an ascetic and rest of the head bald.

He dwells in the home of graveyard, steadfast on vigorous penance as a yogi. He is ferocious to tripurasuras, destroyed daxayaj~na and took away the eyes of Bhaga.

 

nArAyaNAtmako GYeyaH pANDaveya yuge yuge

O Arjuna, know that in every yuga, Rudra is 'nArAyaNAtmaka'. This phrase can mean: one whose indweller is Narayana, one who is always immersed in Narayana.

tasminhi pUjyamAne vai devadeve maheshvare

sampUjito bhavetpArtha devo nArAyaNaH prabhuH

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

ahamAtmA hi lokAnAM vishvAnAM pANDunandana

tasmAdAtmAnamevAgre rudraM sampUjayAmyaham

yadyahaM nArchayeyaM vai IshAnaM varadaM shivam

AtmAnaM nArchayetkashchiditi me bhAvitaM manaH

O Son of Pandu, I am, indeed, the Atma, the indweller of this universe and the worlds. Therefore, I worship myself first, even when I worship Rudra. If I did not worship Rudra, the bestower of boons, in such a way (i.e., worshipping the indwelling Lord first), some would not worship me, the indwelling Lord, at all - this is my opinion.

mayA pramANaM hi kR^itaM lokaH samanuvartate

pramAnAni hi pUjyAni tatastaM pUjayAmyaham

 

Whatever I follow and give due worth as a pramANa, the world follows that.

 

yastaM vetti sa mAM vetti yo.anu taM sa hi mAm anu

rudro nArAyaNashchaiva sattvamekaM dvidhAkR^itam

loke charati kaunteya vyakti sthaM sarvakarmasu

Whoever knows him, knows Me. Whoever follows him, follows ME. (Though) the world, in all its actions, worships two Gods Rudra and Narayana, it is

actually One only(i.e. Narayana, the indweller of Rudra) who is worshipped.

na hi me kenachid deyo varaH pANDavanandana

iti sa~ncintya manasA purANaM vishvamIshvaram

putrArthaM ArAdhitavAn AtmAnaM aham AtmanA

O Son of Pandu, there is, of course, nobody who can grant me boons. Knowing that well, I worhip myself, Who am the beginningless and universal power, known as Sarveshvara, for the sake of getting sons.

na hi viShNuH pranamati kasmai chidvibudhAya tu

R^ita AtmAnameveti tato rudraM bhajAmyaham

Indeed Vishnu does not bow to any one and [even when He bows to Himself], for what sake, but for the sake of showing the path to the wise. Therefore, it is the truth that I worship myself even when I worship Rudra.

 

sabrahmakAH sarudrAshcha sendrA devAH saharShibhiH

archayanti surashreShThaM devaM nArAyaNaM harim

 

The Brahmas, the Rudras, the Indras, the Devatas, all the Rishis worship the best among the Gods, Narayana, Hari.

 

bhaviShyatAM vartatAM cha bhUtAnAM chaiva bhArata

sarveShAmagraNIrviShNuH sevyaH pUjyashcha nityashaH

 

Always, of all the past, future and present, it is first, Vishnu who is to

be propitiated and worshipped.

 

namasva havyadaM viShNuM tathA sharaNadaM nama

varadaM namasva kaunteya havyagavya bhujaM nama

 

[You] bow to Lord Vishnu, Who grants the material for oblations [so that the devotee can perform worship]. Bow to One, Who gives refuge to the devotees. Bow to One, Who gives boons to the devotees. Bow to One, Who consumes all the oblations and milk, curds, etc.

 

chaturvidhA mama janA bhaktA evaM hi te shrutam

teShAmekAntinaH shreShThAste chaivAnanya devatAH

ahameva gatisteShAM nirAshIH karma kAriNAm

ye cha shiShTAstrayo bhaktAH phalakAmA hi te matAH

sarve chyavana dharmANaH pratibuddhastu shreShTha bhAk

brahmANaM shiti kanthaM cha yAshchAnyA devatAH smR^itAH

prabuddhavaryAH sevante eSha pArthAnukItritaH

bhaktaM prati visheShaste eSha pArthAnukIrtitaH

 

There are four kinds of devotees. Among them the best are the "ekanta

bhaktas" like the gods. I am their refuge, who do action interested in

nothing except me. The other three kinds are desirous of fruits of action.

They move on the path of Dharma, enlightened share their knowledge with

others. They worship Brahma, Rudra and other gods, with their own enlightenment. O Partha, they go unto the god, they worship.

 

 

<!-- / message --><!-- edit note -->

[Amlesh]

Dear Dark Warrior,

 

The sun can start rising from the west, but you will remain adamant.

 

Anyways you have your own unique style, so do we and that's what makes it the most interesting Forum.

 

Well, no further argument for this thread from my part.

[Dark Warrior]

My dear friend, I am not the adamant one. The average hindu who refuses to see that Shiva is not equal to Vishnu is adamant.

 

You need to realise that there is absolutely no claim for these people. Shruti and Smriti reveal the greatness of Sri Hari. Sometimes, Bhagavan, due to His intense desire to mingle with Jivas, does things like living among Devas, cowherds and gives boons to Shiva which makes him look powerful. But this wonderful gesture of Lord Vishnu is so misunderstood by all of you.

 

There is no parampara that says Shiva and Vishnu are one. Adi Sankara's original parampara was Vaishnava. Ramanujacharya and Madhvacharya were Vaishnavas.

 

Shaivas do have their own parampara, where they ignore all Shruti and place Shiva as Supreme. Hence, those who say Vishnu=Shiva will be condemned by even Shaivites.

 

In any case, the senseless arguments of Shaivites can be easily refuted.

 

Before you accuse Vaishnavas, refer to our works to see how extensively we have proven our point. Not one portion of pramana is discarded in our works.

[Avinash]

 

Reference: Shanti Parva of Mahabharata. Verses 12.328.5 onwards

Which publication are you using? Ganguli's translation shows something entirely different in Shanti Parva, Mahabharat 12.328 as is evident from the following link: -

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m12/m12c027.htm

[kimfelix]

Dark Warrior, Chapter 328 of the Shanti is an interesting chapter. It is the eighth chapter of the Nara-Narayaniyam, which is definitely Vaishnava in its orientation, and possibly Pancharatric. Even there though the issue is not clear cut as one can see from reading verses 24 to 26. But thank you for pointing it out, it is an interesting passage, and I am sorry to have annoyed you. It was not my intention.

[Dark Warrior]

 

Which publication are you using? Ganguli's translation shows something entirely different in Shanti Parva, Mahabharat 12.328 as is evident from the following link: -

 

Do not quote Ganguli's or other such stupid versions. They are not even authentic. There are many versions of Mahabharata extant today.

 

That is why I only quote what is given in the Bhashyas of acharyas. You realise, that these acharyas quoted these verses while arguing with Shaivites. If these verses were spurious, the Shaivites should have protested.

 

 

Dark Warrior, Chapter 328 of the Shanti is an interesting chapter. It is the eighth chapter of the Nara-Narayaniyam, which is definitely Vaishnava in its orientation, and possibly Pancharatric. Even there though the issue is not clear cut as one can see from reading verses 24 to 26. But thank you for pointing it out, it is an interesting passage, and I am sorry to have annoyed you. It was not my intention.

 

No offense intended or taken on my part. But realise this, there is no such thing as one portion of scripture being 'Vaishnavite in orientation and another being 'Shaivite'. According to us, Shruti (All Vedas, Upanishads, etc.) and Smriti (excluding the interpolations) are Vaishnavite. Even Rudram Chamakam is Vaishnavite, because all prayers go to Vishnu, not Shiva.

 

Until people understand this basic fact (that Vaishnavas have not neglected any pramana) there is no way they will understand.

[kimfelix]

Avinash, this is Chapter 328 of the BORI Critical Edition. Ganguli follows Neelakantha and has translated the Vulgate. In his version, the chapter in question is 342 and starts from page 150 of Volume X. The key verse from Dark Warrior's perspective is verse 12, which is translated half way down page 151: 'From his grace hath arisen Brahman and from his wrath hath arisen Rudra . . ' However, one page 152 we find a translation of verses 21f, beginning from 'I am the Soul . . ' which suggests that Narayana and Rudra form a single identity and one should not distinguish between them. Verse 24 even states:

 

rudro narayanas chaiva sattvam ekam

 

So even in the passages that are from a sectarian Vaishnava perspective, there is still some complexity to the debate.

 

And thank you for your interesting and learned contributions.

[Dark Warrior]

 

The key verse from Dark Warrior's perspective is verse 12, which is translated half way down page 151: 'From his grace hath arisen Brahman and from his wrath hath arisen Rudra . . ' However, one page 152 we find a translation of verses 21f, beginning from 'I am the Soul . . ' which suggests that Narayana and Rudra form a single identity and one should not distinguish between them. Verse 24 even states:

 

rudro narayanas chaiva sattvam ekam

 

*Sigh* 'Sectarian' again...do you ever learn? How many times do I have to tell you this?

 

First of all, 'Ganguli' or 'Bori' is not my idea of a pramana. Provide verses which have been quoted by people prior to the 15th century. That is the way to ascertain which versions are authentic. But since complete ignoramuses like you do not understand this, its pretty useless to argue, of course.

 

Since Shruti clearly mentions Vishnu and Rudra are NOT same, this does not mean so either.

 

Think - Aham Brahmasmi means 'I am brahman'. Does this mean, 'Soul is Brahman'? No. It means that Brahman is within the Soul as indweller. Just like I call Kimfelix's body and Kimfelix's soul as 'Kimfelix' together, so do the Scriptures.

 

Jiva is the body of Brahman. Hence, both Brahman and Jiva are mentioned together.

 

Similarly, 'Rudra and Narayana are One' means that they are one in essence, that everything has the essence of Hari.

 

I will give pramana from Vishnu Purana:

 

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)

 

Simply put, Krishna is saying that just like the world, its devas, its asuras all have the essence of Brahman, Shiva is also Brahman. The body of Brahman can be referred by the name of Brahman.

 

This is the philosophy of Vishishtadvaita. Since everything is Brahman's body, when we say 'Brahman', we refer to both Him and His body. In the Santi Parva, Shiva was the object of debate, and hence, Krishna specifically referred to Shiva, calling him as One.

 

There is no question of equality - The evidence is plain because the verse mentions that Brahma and Rudra are born from Narayana.

 

Kimfelix, PLEASE learn the philosophy of Vedanta. This is why one must never make blind statements from some book like 'Bori' or 'Ganguli' without atleast a rudimentary knowledge. Since you seem incapable of understanding, I will spoonfeed it to you:

 

1) Shruti say Vishnu is supreme. All objections to verses like Shathapatha Brahmana and Mahanarayana Upanishad have been dismissed by me properly.

 

2) Shruti mentions that Jiva is the body of Brahman.

 

3) Hence, any direct interpretations of 'Vishnu is Rudra, Brahma, etc.' from Smriti will clash with Shruti.

 

4) However, we assume both Smriti and Shruti are correct, so reconciliation is needed.

 

5) Hence, an understanding of philosophy is needed to comprehend these sentences.

 

6) Bori, Ganguli and others can stuff it. They are not pramana.

 

7) Kimfelix needs to get it implanted in his brain that there is no such thing as 'selective or sectarian' Vaishnavite interpretation. We interpret Smriti only with regards to Shruti.

[Amlesh]

Dark Warrior, You come from the School of Ramanujacharya?

[Avinash]

 

If I did not worship Rudra, the bestower of boons, in such a way (i.e., worshipping the indwelling Lord first), some would not worship me, the indwelling Lord, at all - this is my opinion.

 

If Krishna is supreme, then people will worship Him whether He worships Rudra or not. Then why does Krishna say that if He did not worship Rudra, then some would not worship Him?

[Dark Warrior]

Because, Krishna had given His word to His devotee, Shiva, that He would fulfill Shiva's desire and seek boons from the latter.

 

So, Krishna tells Arjuna, 'If I hadn't kept my word and worshipped Shiva, then nobody would trust My words and worship Me'.

 

Devotees wouldn't be able to trust the Lord if He broke His word.

 

There is also a second reason. Krishna is saying, 'If I had not worshipped Myself as indweller of Rudra, and instead worshipped Rudra himself, then, no-one would recognise Me as the Supreme Person, and instead will consider Rudra as Supreme.'

 

Vaishnavas understand that both these meanings were conveyed by Krishna. His sowlabhyam (accessibility) shows that 1) He keeps His word, 2) He never worships a Jiva, but rather worships Himself within the Jiva to ensure that no-one confuses the Jiva as Brahman.

 

Well, I am off this thread. You people are so caught in your sentiments, your brains simply cannot register the simple facts. That is why, Kimfelix ignores the statements about Narayana being Supreme and simply quotes the one line about Rudra and Narayana being one, and you (Avinash), questioning everything, despite the bold letters that proclaim Narayana to be the only Brahman, full of auspicious attributes.

 

Atman is the body of the Lord. He resides literally within you. Hence, worship of Shiva does not mean Krishna worshipped the Jiva named Shiva. Krishna, while fulfilling Shiva's promise, simply was worshipping Himself, the indweller of the Jivatma named Shiva.

 

So, Krishna says, 'Whoever worships Rudra or Narayana, worship only one God'. Since in the earlier verse, it says Narayana is supreme and the indweller of Shiva, it means, prayer to Rudra reaches Narayana only, and worship of Narayana directly also gets same result. But if you don't have the jnana to realise this, you are committing a mistake by worshipping Rudra as Brahman.

 

Kimfelix is unable to grasp the sarira-sariri relationship of Jiva and Brahman, so according to him, its 'sectarian' Vaishnava interpretation. And according to him, some texts are written by a bunch of dishonest Vaishnavites and some others by dishonest Shaivites. So, our culture is garbled and confused.

 

This is what ignorance and misunderstanding leads to.

 

It is not my duty to explain everything to Ajnanis, so I shall go.

[Avinash]

This is because the arguments given by you are obviously forced arguments to somehow prove Vishnu's supremacy. Let me go through your arguments: -

You say that the Puranas showing Shiva as supreme are tamasic and, therefore, not authentic. Why not authentic? To that, your reply is that Brahma is deluded during his tamasic period. If the content of tamasic puranas is Brahma's mistake, then it must be a very big mistake. The two statements "Vishnu is greater than Shiva." and "Shiva is greater than Vishnu." are so contradictory that a person with even little bit of common sense will know that these are contradictory. If Brahma could not notice this, then we must say that he was heavily deluded. If Brahma can be so deluded, then how can anybody trust your arguments or the arguments of the Vaishnava acharyas, whom you have quoted?

What is the proof that Shiva Purana is tamasic? You reply that it is written in Padma Purana. But Padma Purana has been interpolated a lot. At present, there are various versions of Padma Purana available. There is no guarantee that the verse in Padma Purana calling Shiva Purana as tamasic is not interpolation.

Even if, for the sake of argument, we believe that the Padma Purana originally spoken by Brahma calls Shiva Purana as tamasic, it does not really prove that Shiva Purana is really tamasic. It is quite possible that Brahma wrote Padma Purana during his tamasic period. Since he was deluded, he wrote wrong things. Because of delusion, he did not know that he was writing wrong things. He thought that he was writing correctly even though he was writing incorrectly. Because of delusion, he called Padma Purana as sattvic though it is tamasic. Please note - I am not saying that this must be the case. But it is a big possibility if Brahma can utter incorrect statements. Moreover, it is your argument that Brahma utters incorrect statements during his tamasic period. What is the guarantee that so called sattvic puranas were spoken by Brahma during his sattvic period? May be these were spoken during his tamasic period?

As per above logic, we should discard all the verses spoken by Brahma. Even Valmiki Ramayan should be discarded. Valmiki got the power to see the life of Rama from Brahma. It is possible that Brahma gave this power to Valmiki during his tamasic period. If Brahma himself was suffering from delusion, then how could his boon to Valmiki be really accurate? So, it is possible that the power, which Valmiki got, gave him incorrect information about Rama.

You may argue that sattvic puranas are authentic because they match Shruti. But here I have two objections. One objection is what is the proof that tamasic puranas really contradict shruti? Saying that Padma Purana calls them tamasic is not a good argument as I have explained above. You must prove that the puranas, which you call as tamasic, really contradict shruti.

Another objection is that sattvic puranas contain many things, which can neither be proven correct nor be proven wrong according to shruti. In other words, the puranas contain things, which are just not present in shruti. These verses of puranas become suspect. It is possible that Brahma spoke these so called sattvic puranas (or at least some part of them) during his tamasic period. Being in tamasic period does not mean that everything spoken by him must be wrong. Some things may be right and some things wrong. If some verses can be verified with shruti, then we know whether those are right or not. But what about other verses? Those verses become suspect.

Therefore, we should consider only those portions of smriti, which can be proved to be correct according to shruti. Other portions should be discarded.

Consider two sets A and B. Suppose we make the following rules: -

1. Consider all elements of A.

2. Consider only those elements of B, which are common in both A and B. Discard other elements.

If we need to follow the above two rules, then we do not need to look into B at all. This is because the elements of B, which should be considered are present in A also. So, why not study only A?

By the same logic, we should not consider any portion of smriti at all. Study only shruti? But in your arguments, you have relied a lot on smriti by calling that smriti as sattvic.

You called one verse as interpolation because meter does not match. I agree with you here. But, has anybody, really checked the meters of all the verses in all scriptures to make sure that the meter is correct? Or, only when a verse was found to be in contradiction to one's belief, that the meter was checked?

In another case, when meter was correct, then you claimed that Rudra referred to Vishnu because Narayan is a proper noun, but Rudra is not. How can you claim that Narayan is a proper noun? The word "narayan" means one who lives inside water. Of course, Vishnu lives inside water. But it does not mean that nobody else can. If you argue that Vishnu only is called as Narayan because of certain incidents like Vishnu residing in causal ocean and garbhodak ocean, then I can argue that only Shiv is called as Rudra because Brahma asked him not to cry.

You have quoted from Satapata Brahmana. Like you, I also consider it as authentic because it is proved to be very ancient text. Satapata Brahmana contains the story of how Vishnu's head was cut off when Vamri ants ate up the thread of the bow on which Vishnu was resting his head. This story does not find mention in the puranas, which show Vishnu as supreme. But it does find mention in Devi Bhagavatam. Will you consider Devi Bhagavatam as authentic? If not, then what contradiction do you find between Devi Bhagavatam and Shruti? If yes, then do you believe that Adi Shakti is supreme and Vishnu is not? After all, Devi Bhagavatam says that Vishnu is not supreme.

When you were asked why devas went to Shiva to pray to Vishnu dwelling inside Shiva and why they did not go directly to Vishnu, then you replied that Shiva is devata's guru. But guru is a medium to get us to God. If I directly see God in front of me, then why should I go to guru and why not to God? Suppose that God comes in front of you. Won't you talk to him directly?

[Dark Warrior]

Seems like Avinash's mind couldn't take all the facts, so its pretty much an outpouring of sentiment here. Since this is pretty answerable, I will take back what I said, and reply again.

 

 

You say that the Puranas showing Shiva as supreme are tamasic and, therefore, not authentic. Why not authentic? To that, your reply is that Brahma is deluded during his tamasic period. If the content of tamasic puranas is Brahma's mistake, then it must be a very big mistake. The two statements "Vishnu is greater than Shiva." and "Shiva is greater than Vishnu." are so contradictory that a person with even little bit of common sense will know that these are contradictory. If Brahma could not notice this, then we must say that he was heavily deluded. If Brahma can be so deluded, then how can anybody trust your arguments or the arguments of the Vaishnava acharyas, whom you have quoted?

 

When Vishnu is among the Devas, few know that He is the Supreme Lord. On Earth, there are many foolish atheists. Similarly, when the Devas get clouded by Maya, they think they themselves are Supreme.

 

Proof - refer the Puranas where Shiva fights Krishna. Shiva was so deluded that even he forgot Krishna is God. Bhrigu also had to test Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva to find out who was Supreme among them, showing how well Vishnu blends in with the Devas. The Devas egged Shiva to contest with Vishnu to find out who was supreme. Vishnu defeated Shiva by a mere glance, upon which Mahadeva fell unconscious.

 

Brahma is deluded by Sri Hari to provide Tamasic Puranas. If an atheist can be so deluded so as to worship a man like Sai Baba, why can't a Jiva like Brhma be deluded enough to think wrongly at times?

 

Remember, Sri Hari came as Buddha and gave out a Nastika Doctrine. So, there is absiolutely no problem with a tamo guna purana which says 'Shiva is supreme'. When Buddhism itself is a product of Vishnu's mischief, you can expect ANYTHING from him.

 

Vaishnava acharyas KNOW that Sri Hari deludes. They KNOW that Brahma is a Jiva who is subject to faults. So, you can definitely trust them. Besides, I don't see any shaivite who has ever refuted them.

 

And you are right - A verse saying 'Shiva is Supreme' and a verse saying 'Vishnu is supreme' are contradictory. Anyone with common sense can see that. So they both can't be right. Hence, we refer to Shruti. Shruti verifies that Vishnu is Supreme.

 

 

What is the proof that Shiva Purana is tamasic? You reply that it is written in Padma Purana. But Padma Purana has been interpolated a lot. At present, there are various versions of Padma Purana available. There is no guarantee that the verse in Padma Purana calling Shiva Purana as tamasic is not interpolation

 

Moron, open your eyes and read this thread. Shiva Purana's claims of Rama worshipping Shiva is nowhere present in Valmiki Ramayana. Hence, Shiva Purana is blatantly lying. Such a lie is tamasic indeed.

 

In order to prove that the guna classification verse is an interpolation, you have to first prove that Shiva Purana is not tamasic. But here is the proof - Shiva Purana is not above misinformation.

 

There are many versions of Padma Purana, but this one verse about guna classification has been quoted by both Ramanujacharya and Madhvacharya. NOBODY OBJECTED TO THEM QUOTING THIS VERSE DURING THOSE TIMES. Hence, if Shaivites couldn't say it was an interpolation, its not.

 

Adi Sankara does not refer to Guna classification, but he appears to accept it in his works - he only refers to Vishnu and Padma Puranas as authority in his bhashyas.

 

Hence, its authentic. We only use whatever has been quoted by Acharyas, as there was heavy debate during their times, and any fake quotes would have been criticised. Even Shaivas like Appaya Dikshitar, who were so biased, never refuted this guna classification.

 

 

Even if, for the sake of argument, we believe that the Padma Purana originally spoken by Brahma calls Shiva Purana as tamasic, it does not really prove that Shiva Purana is really tamasic. It is quite possible that Brahma wrote Padma Purana during his tamasic period. Since he was deluded, he wrote wrong things. Because of delusion, he did not know that he was writing wrong things.

 

1) Brahma did not 'write' Puranas. He acts as a storyteller to the devas. Vyasa is the one who wrote it down.

 

2) As I said before, when Sri Hari takes an avatar among Devas, He fits in so well that even the Devas are deluded by Maya. So, Brahma gets confused sometimes.

 

3) Sattvik Puranas are consistent with both Shruti and Ithihasas, so there is no way that they could have been products of a Tamasic person. But Shiva Purana contradicts Shruti and Smriti. The example of Rama worshipping Shiva clearly proves it.

 

 

Another objection is that sattvic puranas contain many things, which can neither be proven correct nor be proven wrong according to shruti. In other words, the puranas contain things, which are just not present in shruti.

 

Moron, acharyas have written elaborate commentaries on Sattvik Puranas and shown them to be consistent with Shruti. Exactly WHAT is inconsistent? Only your addled brain.

 

 

These verses of puranas become suspect. It is possible that Brahma spoke these so called sattvic puranas (or at least some part of them) during his tamasic period.

 

Shiva Purana - Rama worships Shiva. WRONG, as per Valmiki.

 

Padma Purana - Rama worships Himself. RIGHT, as per Valmiki. This verse is also quoted by acharyas, hence its authenticity is known.

 

A 5 year old would understand, but you don't.

 

 

Being in tamasic period does not mean that everything spoken by him must be wrong. Some things may be right and some things wrong. If some verses can be verified with shruti, then we know whether those are right or not. But what about other verses? Those verses become suspect.

 

You are absolutely right. Not everything in a tamasic purana is wrong. Sri Ramanujar quotes from Skanda Purana and Linga Purana in his Sri Bhashya.

 

So, the rule is - Sattvik Puranas are 100% consistent. Tamasic Puranas can be taken as valid only in those portions where they DON'T contradict Shruti.

 

Shiva as supreme contradicts both Shruti and Smriti. But the theory of Karma and Reincarnation is in Shiva Purana as well, and since it is consistent with Shruti, it can be accepted.

 

 

 

1. Consider all elements of A.

2. Consider only those elements of B, which are common in both A and B. Discard other elements.

If we need to follow the above two rules, then we do not need to look into B at all. This is because the elements of B, which should be considered are present in A also. So, why not study only A?

 

Again, dimwit, your logic is wrong.

 

Purpose of B (Smriti) is to elucidate A (Shruti) for proper understanding.

 

For instance, Shruti says, 'The being (Vishnu) on the Ocean is Supreme'. Smriti describes this Ocean as the Ocean of Milk, with Lord Vishnu on Adi Sesha. Hence, it s accepted as truth because it doesn't contradict Shruti.

 

Then, Shruti says, 'Vishnu is Supreme'. Smriti says at some points, 'Shiva is Supreme'. Now, should be believe this? But Smriti itself offers a solution - that Sri Hari deludes people and the verse about some parts being Sattvik/Rajasa/Tamasa. Hence, Smriti recommends discarding non-vedic statements.

 

And what about some statements in Mahabharata about Shiva's supremacy? We have no guna classification. So, we turn to the option of proving it as an interpolation. Two proofs - 1) NO scholar in ancient times has EVER mentioned or quoted such a verse, so it is a recent addition, 2) It contradicts Shruti.

 

Since we operate on the basis that Vyasa composed Smriti with a view to understanding Shruti, we reject false statements as works not authored by Vyasa. But tamasic Puranas were authored by Vyasa purposefully.

 

If you study only A, you wouldn't understand anything deeper about it. If you study B without A, you wouldn't know which is right and which is wrong. So you need both.

 

 

You called one verse as interpolation because meter does not match. I agree with you here. But, has anybody, really checked the meters of all the verses in all scriptures to make sure that the meter is correct? Or, only when a verse was found to be in contradiction to one's belief, that the meter was checked?

 

Refer above. When something contradicts Shruti, its authenticity can be verified if anyone, be he a buddhist, jain, shaivite, etc. has quoted it in ancient times. If he hasn't, further proof is offered by showing how it is inconsistent with Shruti. So, it is an interpolation.

 

Vaishnavas have written elaborate commentaries on Vishnu and Bhagavata Puranas to show their consistency. We have also proven how Shiva Purana is absurd and borders on blatant lies.

 

 

In another case, when meter was correct, then you claimed that Rudra referred to Vishnu because Narayan is a proper noun, but Rudra is not. How can you claim that Narayan is a proper noun? The word "narayan" means one who lives inside water. Of course, Vishnu lives inside water. But it does not mean that nobody else can. If you argue that Vishnu only is called as Narayan because of certain incidents like Vishnu residing in causal ocean and garbhodak ocean, then I can argue that only Shiv is called as Rudra because Brahma asked him not to cry

 

Dimbulb, it is not my 'opinion' that Narayana is a proper noun. IT IS THE BASIC LAW OF SANSKRIT. Refer Panini's grammatical treatise. Refer any book on how to follow the language of the Vedas. NO VEDANTIN HAS EVER FLOUTED THIS RULE. Even Appaya Dikshitar abides by it.

 

Any sanskrit scholar will tell you that Narayana is linked with Vishnu. Shiva is a name of Narayana, but Narayana cannot be applied to Shiva. Since I am no sanskrit pundit, refer to a Sanskrit scholar for the same.

 

You are really ignorant, aren't you?

 

 

Satapata Brahmana contains the story of how Vishnu's head was cut off when Vamri ants ate up the thread of the bow on which Vishnu was resting his head. This story does not find mention in the puranas, which show Vishnu as supreme.

 

Bloody Idiot, Quote the exact verses. And remember, Shathapatha Brahmana has been commentated upon by Vaishnavas. Even Shaivas accept that Vishnu is declared as invincible by the Veda.

 

Ganeshprasad made the same mistake when he called Rudra as Agni. But Agni itself has a deeper meaning than observable. There is absolutely no story in Shruti that subordinates Vishnu, and that is a fact.

 

 

When you were asked why devas went to Shiva to pray to Vishnu dwelling inside Shiva and why they did not go directly to Vishnu, then you replied that Shiva is devata's guru. But guru is a medium to get us to God. If I directly see God in front of me, then why should I go to guru and why not to God? Suppose that God comes in front of you. Won't you talk to him directly

 

1) Mahabharata clarifies that Vishnu is indeed Shiva's indweller. Hence, Bhagavatam was indeed pertaining to this.

 

2) Vishnu Himself wants everyone to approach Him through Guru. That's His law, and nobody shall flout it. The devas are requested to approach Brahma through Shiva. Brahma then appoaches Lakshmi Narayana and pleads on their behalf.

 

3) You will NEVER attain God without a Guru. Krishna confirms it in Gita. Tell me, even Vyasa and Valmiki were schooled by Narada. So, Avinash is such a great jnani, that he does not need a guru to appear before God?

 

Avinash, you are just blabbering here. Go wipe your fevered brow.