Is Lord Shiva a demi-god?

[Avinash]

I have no problem in accepting that Brahma can get deluded. But then, Vaishnava acharyas also can get deluded. Valmiki can also get deluded.

[Dark Warrior]

Unfortunately for you, no-one has accepted that Valmiki can get deluded. Valmiki Ramayana is consistent with Shruti. Hence, it is proof that Valmiki was NOT deluded.

 

Vaishnava Acharyas have PROVEN that Shiva Purana is inconsistent. Hence, in order to show that they were 'deluded', you need to prove them otherwise. I have already shown how Shiva Purana is indeed lying.

 

A liar won't admit that he is lying. So, the Guna Classification is not seen in Shiva Purana.

 

Your ignorance is exposed - Valmiki was deluded in to writing the Ramayana, which is accepted as pramana by all schools. That's a terrific statement, dude.

[Amlesh]

 

I have no problem in accepting that Brahma can get deluded. But then, Vaishnava acharyas also can get deluded. Valmiki can also get deluded.

 

Nope, they are Brahmanas, they are the most protected by Krishna. They are supposed to show perfection.

 

According to Srimad Bhagvatam, they are highest in the universe.

[Dark Warrior]

Sarcasm without substance is useless.

 

Now, I really will stop posting here. It is a given that Sri Hari has revealed tamasic puranas for a purpose. And that purpose is clearly Avinash, ganeshprasad and co. I have no problem with that.

 

Its the law of the Universe. Bye.

[Avinash]

What will Sri Hari gain by deluding me, Ganesh Prasad and Co. throgh tamasic puranas?

[Amlesh]

All of us know the Vedic Conclusion, that's enough. The rest is to make our life a bit spicy.

 

Anyways, we are from the same background, so chill dudes.

[Avinash]

Valmiki Ramayan says that it was Brahma, who took the form of a boar and raised the Earth out of water. Context: -Sage Jabali tells says that rituals are of no use. Rama gets angry. Then Vashistha tells Rama that Jabali is saying this only because he wants Rama to come back to Ayodhya. After that Vashistha says some other things - one of which is that Brahma lifted Earth out of water.

Bhagavatam clearly says that Vishnu took the form of boar. So, one contradicts the other.

[Avinash]

Before anybody comes to wrong conclusions, let me make it clear that I am not a Shaiva. I belong to a Vaishnava family. In my family, all consider Vishnu as supreme. Even I have always considered Vishnu as supreme.

[Avinash]

One more contradiction. The ancestors' list of Rama as given in Valmiki Ramayan is different from as given in Bhagavatam.

[Dark Warrior]

Avinash, you are pathetic.

 

1) Puranas say that Brahma meditated on Narayana, and Varaha came out of Brahma's nostril to defeat the asura. Hence, it is taken to mean that Narayana, the indweller literally became Varaha. Since, jiva is the body of Brahman, according to Vishishtadvaita, when we say 'Jiva is Brahman', it means 'the indweller of the Jiva is Brahman'.

 

So, by saying 'Brahma became the boar', it pertains to Brahma's indweller.

 

2) Secondly, the Puranas show Yuga Bheda. The reason why there is a contradiction in ancestors is because it may pertain to a Rama avatara of another Yuga. Similarly, Krishna Lila of Vishnu Purana differs from Bhagavata Purana's Krishna Lila.

 

Lord performs activities differently in different yugas. Nobody said that all Puranas pertain to this Yuga.

 

Avinash, you are not a Vaishnava. I am sick of mordern day hindus calling themselves Vaishnavas, and yet equating Shiva to Vishnu. What you people know about Brahman can fit into the surface area of a pinhead.

[Amlesh]

Don't worry Avinash, I know that I'm not that intelligent, but still God gave me enough to identify a Vaishnava.

 

Anyways, I'll try to see the case you've presented, cause I quite ignorant about, then only I think I'll be fit to give a complete answer.

 

So in the meantime you can .

[Amlesh]

As usual, Dark Warrior is too quick.

[zapak]

 

The thread starter is ignorant of etiquette, no doubt. He and I have our little differences (and confrontational mud-slinging). But that does not make Vaishnavism entirely wrong.

 

1) From the Vedas, it is to be gathered that Narayana is parabrahman. He existed alone, one without a second. No Rudra, No Brahma, etc.

 

2) It is mentioned clearly that Rudra is a Jivatma. Shathapatha Brahmana talks of how Rudra was born, how he asked Brahma to remove his past sins.

 

3) The name 'Rudra' was given to this jivatma by Brahma. Rudra means 'howler'. He was given this name because he cried when he was born.

 

4) Names like Shiva, Maheswara, Shambhu were given to Rudra by Brahma just to appease Rudra's ego. In reality, the name Shiva means 'auspicious'. Maheswara means 'Lord of the World'. Shambhu means 'Blissful'.

 

5) Therfore, such names like Shiva, etc. can also apply to Narayana. He alone is auspicious, blissful and the Lord of the World.

 

Now, the Vedas, are unified in one fact - Narayana is Brahman. But they also call Siva as Brahman, Indra as Brahman, Vayu as Brahman, Shambhu as Brahman, etc. However, it is clearly and coherently mentioned that Narayana is the highest and none other.

 

In other parts of the Vedas, these deities like Indra and Shiva are shown to be jivatmas. They have defects. So, they couldn't possibly be supreme.

 

Then how do we resolve contradictions? Simply take the common names. Siva is Brahman means 'Brahman is auspicious'. It does not pertain to Mahadeva. Shambhu is Brahman means 'Brahman is blissful'.

 

Indra has all the wealth (aiswarya) of Brahman. But he does not have other traits like intelligence, auspiciousness, etc. So, Narayana is Indra, Brahma, Siva means Narayana has aiswarya, intelligence and auspiciousness.

 

There is also another aspect. In the hymns praising devas, there is always a gentle reminder that the deity is praised only with Vishnu as the indweller.

 

Sri Rudram Chamakam, for instance, praises Rudra as supreme. But it also mentions in the Chamakam part that all prayers to Rudra go to the source of his power, the indwelling Lord Vishnu.

 

Saivites CANNOT get past the fact that Rudra has emphatically been declared to be a jivatma in Vedas. Therfore, they stick to Siva Purana. But Siva Purana is classified as Tamo guna. Hence, Saivites are defeated.

 

It is also shown in the Vedas that Brahma, Shiva, Indra are just posts. Any jivatma can attain this position by penance. Which means, if you or me do such a penance, we could become Rudra or Brahma in another Yuga by Sri Hari's grace. Once the current Brahma's life span ends, either he, along with the devas gets moksha (if Sri Hari is willing) or they will be subject to transmigration in Samsara again.

 

 

 

Correction. I cannot stand Tackleberry's disrespect for acharyas of other sampradayas just because they differ philosophically. It is unvaishnavite. I have nothing but respect for Sri Madhvacharya.

 

It is foolish to say that only Vaishnavas fight. The same goes for Saivism. You have Veera Shaivism, Kashmir Shaivism, Kapalika and Kalamukha, each squabbling with one another. The Smarta sect of advaitins also have divisions, each claiming to be the original parampara of Sri Sankaracharya.

 

----

 

Coming to the topic of this thread,

 

Rudra is not worshippable as a devotee of Vishnu even. If that was the case, one may also worship Indra, because despite Indra being completely materialistic, he always seeks the lotus feet of Vishnu for even material gains (making him a Vaishnava).

 

Rudra is a Rama bhakta. But there are many instances when he has rebelled against Sri Krishna, and considered himself to be supreme. Of course, he has realised his mistake, but that only makes him a vaishnava. There is a difference between Bhagavata and Vaishnava in the sense that even materialists may worship Vishnu and be called Vaishnavas. But Bhagavatas are people like our acharyas who have never stepped beyond the line of devotion and selfless service. Rudra is not a bhagavata.

 

Srimad Bhagavatam calls Rudra the greatest Vaishnava. True, but this may not pertain to even this yuga's Rudra. It is a well known fact that Puranas often pertain to events occuring in different chatur yugas. That is why there are some discrepancies with chronology. Hence, the Rudra hailed as a Vaishnava in Bhagavatam could have been a Rudra of a previous yuga as well.

 

I respect Rudra and other devas, but I won't worship them. Only Lakshmi Narayana and the acharyas are worshippable.

 

 

 

 

 

" vishnu is treated as a cheater by "rakshas" but not Shiva"

"Shiva drank the poison when everybody was afraid included vishnu"

"Shiva is worshiped by everybody no matter he is rakshas or devta"

"In Mahabharat muni vyas says to Ashwathama that both Nar (arjun) and Narayana (krishan) have power from Lord Shiva so they are invinsible only Shiva can defeat them" (this is asked by Ashwathama when his Brahmastra has no effect over them)

 

Deside yourself who is supreme.

[kimfelix]

And in the Mahabharata (Book 3, Chapter 185, Critical Edition) there is an account of the Matsya avatar, but at the end Matsyadeva reveals his true identity: aham prajapatir brahma!

 

Smriti and Shruti both say Vishnu is Supreme and also say Shiva is Supreme.

 

Contradictions, contradictions. We must therefore conclude, 'The Shiva Purana is lying'

 

But if we accept the view of the Mahabharata that Vishnu, Shiva and perhaps Brahma are different features of the same Supreme Deity then all the apparent contradictions melt away so easily.

[zapak]

" vishnu is treated as a cheater by "rakshas" but not Shiva"

"Shiva drank the poison when everybody was afraid included vishnu"

"Shiva is worshiped by everybody no matter he is rakshas or devta"

"In Mahabharat muni vyas says to Ashwathama that both Nar (arjun) and Narayana (krishan) have power from Lord Shiva so they are invinsible only Shiva can defeat them" (this is asked by Ashwathama when his Brahmastra has no effect over them)

 

Deside yourself who is supreme.

[Dark Warrior]

 

And in the Mahabharata (Book 3, Chapter 185, Critical Edition) there is an account of the Matsya avatar, but at the end Matsyadeva reveals his true identity: aham prajapatir brahma!

 

And you can't get you stupid brain out of 'BORI, CRITICAL EDITION', can you?

 

Try reading Madhvacharya's Mahabharata. He has clearly refuted all spurious versions. But of course, his arguments are 'sectarian', aren't they?

 

 

Smriti and Shruti both say Vishnu is Supreme and also say Shiva is Supreme.

 

Shruti says Vishnu is Supreme. Smriti says Vishnu is Supreme.

 

you know nothing about Shruti. First, learn how to apply Sanskrit laws.

 

 

Contradictions, contradictions. We must therefore conclude, 'The Shiva Purana is lying'

 

Moron, with the double proof of Guna Classification and Valmiki Ramayana, your pea brain cannot refute it.

 

The standard is Shruti > Ithihasas > Puranas. Hence, Puranas must be compared to Valmiki and not vice versa.

 

 

But if we accept the view of the Mahabharata that Vishnu, Shiva and perhaps Brahma are different features of the same Supreme Deity then all the apparent contradictions melt away so easily.

 

And who died and made you a Vedantin? That absurdity contradicts the basic verses of Shruti.

 

I will list Kimfelix's absurdities:

 

1) Svetasvatara is a Shaivite text.

 

2) Krishna is not a 'Vedic' god.

 

3) BORI CRITICAL EDITION is apparently the only book he can ever refer to (other than Ganguli, perhaps). According to him, books written by institutes without referring to Shruti are more valid that the works of Vaishnavas which integrate Shruti and Smriti.

 

4) Kimfelix can't go beyond 'Rudra and Narayana are One'. Apparently, his mind is incapable of understanding philosophy.

 

Stands to reason, these nut-jobs have no arguments.

[Avinash]

 

Avinash, you are pathetic.

Thank you.

 

 

1) Puranas say that Brahma meditated on Narayana, and Varaha came out of Brahma's nostril to defeat the asura. Hence, it is taken to mean that Narayana, the indweller literally became Varaha.

You are quoting from Puranas. Where does Shruti say that Vishnu took the form of a boar? In fact Satapatha Brahmana (14.2.1.11) says that Prajapati took the form of boar. And Satapatha Brahmana is a shruti.

 

 

2) Secondly, the Puranas show Yuga Bheda. The reason why there is a contradiction in ancestors is because it may pertain to a Rama avatara of another Yuga. Similarly, Krishna Lila of Vishnu Purana differs from Bhagavata Purana's Krishna Lila.

It was easy to guess that you will talk about different yugas. But other contradictions too can be reconciled by mentioning different yugas. For example, we can say that in one yuga, Rama prayed to Shiva and in another he did not. Shiva Purana talks about one yuga and Valmiki Ramayan of another. It can also be argued that both books talk about the same yuga but Valmiki did not write about Rama worshipping Shiva. Just because Valmiki did not write, it does not mean that it did not happen. After all, we cannot expect Valmiki to have written each and every thing that Rama did.

[Dark Warrior]

 

You are quoting from Puranas. Where does Shruti say that Vishnu took the form of a boar? In fact Satapatha Brahmana (14.2.1.11) says that Prajapati took the form of boar. And Satapatha Brahmana is a shruti.

 

Moron, Shruti is not for describing avatars. It is for describing the nature of Brahman.

 

Rig Veda says that One God bears the names of all Gods (because he is indweller). Narayana Suktam says Narayana is God. Shiva's birth, his absence during pralaya, his admittance of being sinful is recorded. Narayana is mentioned to have no flaws.

 

Combining all this info, one call agree that all names pertain to Narayana, because he is indweller. Hence, Shrutis that say 'Hiranyagarbha is supreme', 'Prajapati is Supreme', 'Shiva is Supreme', etc. pertains to Narayana.

 

Shathapatha Brahmana mentions birth of Prajapati. It also says Prajapati took form of boar. We know Vishnu is Varaha. We also know all names pertain to Vishnu (based on above conclusions).

 

Hence, Prajapati is Vishnu here. This resolves all contradictions.

 

 

It was easy to guess that you will talk about different yugas. But other contradictions too can be reconciled by mentioning different yugas. For example, we can say that in one yuga, Rama prayed to Shiva and in another he did not. Shiva Purana talks about one yuga and Valmiki Ramayan of another. It can also be argued that both books talk about the same yuga but Valmiki did not write about Rama worshipping Shiva. Just because Valmiki did not write, it does not mean that it did not happen. After all, we cannot expect Valmiki to have written each and every thing that Rama did

 

From above conclusions, it has been proved that Narayana is Brahman. So, it follows that He will NEVER worship a jiva such as Shiva in any yuga.

 

Hence, Shiva Purana is tamasic.

[Avinash]

 

"Shiva drank the poison when everybody was afraid included vishnu".

In the same story, it is written that Siva got deluded by Mohini form of Vishnu. Of course, later he came out of delusion. But, he was under delusion at least for some time. If he is supreme, then he should not have been under delusion even for a moment.

Just because Shiva drank poison, it does not prove that Vishnu could not do so. Remember Krishna ate poison when Putana tried to breastfeed him. Krishna did not die. Rather, Putana died.

Where is it written that Vishnu was afraid of drinking poison?

[Amlesh]

... on top of that Putana got liberated.

[Avinash]

Correct, Amlesh. That is a very important point.

[Avinash]

 

Shathapatha Brahmana mentions birth of Prajapati. It also says Prajapati took form of boar. We know Vishnu is Varaha. We also know all names pertain to Vishnu (based on above conclusions).

 

Hence, Prajapati is Vishnu here.

First you say that Satapatha Brahmana mentions birth of Prajapati. Then you say that Prajapati is Vishnu here. If we combine these two statements, then we find that Satapatha Brahmana mentions birth of Vishnu.

[Dark Warrior]

After a long time of thinking, you have come up with some argument, eh?

 

Vishnu is unambiguously identified as unborn. The gods sprouted from the navel of the unborn...Om tad Visnoh Paramapadam. Narayana Para Brahman, that Narayana created Brahma, Rudras, Prajapatis, Adityas, etc.

 

Hence, in one portion, birth of Prajapati is indicated. In another portion, Prajapati is called supreme.

 

Now, to resolve this contradiction - The prajapati who was born is literally taken to be a deva.

 

Since he was born, he cannot be the one referred to as 'Prajapati' in another verse which says Prajapati is supreme.

 

Logically, it follows that this Supreme Prajapati is not the same Prajapati who was born.

 

Hence, Prajapati is a name of Brahman. Brahman is Vishnu. Thus, confusion of Veda is cleared. You need to find out when to apply etymology and when to apply the literal meaning. This requires proper study of Shruti.

 

A person's name is Narayana. He does not become the Narayana of the Veda just because his name is Narayana.

[Dark Warrior]

Rg Veda

 

1-22-17

 

"idaM viSNurvi cakrame tredhA ni dadhe padam |

samUDamasya pAMsure ||"

 

Meaning:

 

"Vishnu measured all these worlds with three steps. These worlds were covered by the dust from His Feet."

 

All the worlds were covered by the dust from Visnu's feet. This shows His Great strength. when all the worlds were covered by dust then so were the living beings of those worlds.

 

Thus Indra, Agni etc. who reside in Heaven were also covered by the dust which shows Visnu's superior position. He is superior to these Devas.

 

 

1-22-18

 

"trINi . vi cakrame viSNurgopA adAbhyaH |

ato dharmANi dhArayan ||"

 

Meaning:

 

" Vishnu, the protector(gopA) and invincible(adAbhyaH), measured with three steps. By doing so, He bears and saves all the Dharmas(dharmANi dhArayan)."

 

Thus Visnu saves all the Dharmas. He is the Supreme protector.

 

1-154-3

 

"pra viSNave shUSametu manma girikSita urugAyAya vRSNe |

ya idaM dIrghaM prayataM sadhasthameko vimame tribhirit padebhiH ||"

 

Meaning:

 

"To that Visnu who measured these worlds which are broad and long, all alone and without any support, with three steps, unto Him who showers boons , who is highly praised and who resides in higher plane; let these hymns of strength go and reach."

 

Note:

 

"sadhasthameko vimame" - Worlds were measured by Him alone. This shows, He needs no help to do anything.

 

1-154-4

 

"yasya trI pUrNA madhunA padAnyakSIyamANA svadhayAmadanti |

ya u tridhAtu pRtivImuta dyAmeko dAdhAra bhuvanAni vishvA ||"

 

Meaning:

 

"He whose three steps are filled of nectar, are indestructible and please by giving food, that Vishnu, all alone(eko),bears the earth, space and all worlds along with the three dhAthus - past, present and future/ land, fire and water."

 

Vishnu is praised as the bearer of the worlds here.

 

1-154-5

 

"tadasya priyamabhi pAtho ashyAM naro yatra devayavo madanti |

urukramasya sa hi bandhuritthA viSNoH pade parame madhva utsaH ||"

 

Meaning:

 

"From Supreme Feet of Visnu(visno pade parame), who is the friend of everyone, arose a flood of water(Ganga) as sweet as nectar(madhva) and that water which is dear to Him(tadasya priyamabhi) be drunk by me. Men who wish to attain Devatva bath(naro yatra devayavo madanti) in that water(pAtho). Like this is its greatness(itthA)."

 

This shows even Devatas take bath in the water that springs from the feet of Vishnu. Note, it says, any jiva who wishes to become a Deva can take bath, which indicates that the Devas are posts held by Jivas. Vishnu is clearly excluded from the lot.

 

1-155-3

 

"tA IM vardhanti mahyasya pauMsyaM ni mAtarA nayati retase bhuje |

dadhAti putro.avaraM paraM piturnAma tRtIyamadhi rocane divaH ||"

 

Meaning:

 

"These sacrifices increase increase the wealth, pride and manliness of the Yajamana. From the bright centre of the Sun, to create living beings and for their enjoyment, He makes the Jivas to attain the space and earth. By the of grace Him who is the protector, this Jiva is born as a son to one father and attains the higher name(son), lower name(grandson) and a third name (father)."

 

Here it shows Vishnu to be the source of everything. Remember, Vishnu is Yajna. That is identified in Shathapatha Brahmana.

 

SAyana translates 'pitur - pituh' as "pAlakAt viSNur anugrahAt".

 

 

1-155-4

 

"tat tadidasya pauMsyaM gRNImasInasya traturavRkasya mIDhuSaH |

yaH pArthivAni tribhirid vigAmabhiruru kramiSTorugAyAya jIvase ||"

 

Meaning:

 

"That LOrd who measured each and every atom of the worlds(pArthivAni) with three steps to be praised and to protect the worlds, let us worship those manly deeds of Him who is the Lord of everything(inasya), protector(trAtu), kind hearted(avRkasya), ever young/giver of all wishes(mIDhuSah)."

 

Vishnu is the Lord of everything. Cannot be clearer.

 

1-155-5

 

"dve idasya kramaNe svardRsho.abhikhyAya martyo bhuraNyati |

tRtIyamasya nakirA dadharSati vayashcana patayantaH patatriNaH ||"

 

Meaning:

 

"Men know and worship by praising only the two steps of Visnu, who sees the heaven. He can never know about the third step of Visnu. Even the VAyus which blow everywhere and the flying birds cannot know it."

 

Vishnu alone is said to know some things, like His 3rd step. No-one else knows it. Hence, He is omniscient.

 

1-156-3

 

"tamu stotAraH pUrvyaM yathA vida Rtasya garbhaM januSApipartana |

Asya jAnanto nAma cid vivaktana mahaste viSNo sumatiM bhajAmahe ||"

 

Meaning:

 

"O singers of Hymns! Knowing the most ancient and the creator of water(and thus the worlds), please Him by singing hymns in praise of Him without any thought for worldly boons but for attaining Him(januSA).O knowers of His name! Sing it everywhere. O divine Great LOrd(maha) Visnu! Let us attain the good thought singing ur praise."

 

 

Self-explanatory.

 

Sayana, in his commentary on Rig Veda says "janusA :: janmanA - svata eva - na kenachit vara lAbhAdinA" (as the purpose of taking this birth and not for any worldly boons - thus only for attaining Visnu[this is confirmed by words like 'sodhvana pAramApnoti tad viSNo paramam padam'{KaTha Upa}).

 

1-156-5

 

"A yo vivAya sacathAya daivya indrAya viSNuH sukRte sukRttaraH |

vedhA ajinvat triSadhastha AryaM Rtasya bhAge yajamAnamAbhajat ||"

 

Meaning:

 

"That Visnu, who is divine and who is the best in giving good fruits(boons), came down to help Indra who did good work(of worshipping Visnu thru yagna). That Visnu who is in the moksha loka(triSadhasthah) and who is the giver of all boons(vedhA) makes the Yajmana(Indra) feel happy(ajinvat) by giving him the fruits(abhajat) of his yagna."

 

Thus, Indra worships Vishnu for powers.

 

7-99-2

 

"na te viSNo jAyamAno na jAto deva mahimnaH param antam Apa |

ud astabhnA nAkam RSvam bRhantaM dAdhartha prAcIM kakubham pRthivyAH ||"

 

 

Meaning:

 

"No being that is or has been born can ever attain Your Magnitude which has the highest limit(naH param antam). The moksha loka(nAkam) which is beautiful to see and large is borne by You. You art bearing the worlds at their ancient positions(after pralaya)."

 

Here it says that the mahima of Vishnu is greatest. Narayana is said to be present during Pralaya, and no-one else, in another verse. Hence, this verse pertains to Vishnu (Narayana).

 

7-100-5

 

"pra tat te adya shipiviSTa nAmAryaH shaMsAmi vayunAni vidvAn |

taM tvA gRNAmi tavasam atavyAn kSayantam asya rajasaH parAke || "

 

Meaning:

 

"O Bright Lord! I utter that name of You after knowing about the way to attain Moksha(vayunAni vidvAn) becoming the master(arya). I worship by singing about You as the One who is the Most Ancient and who is residing beyond this material world(rajasaH parAke)."

 

Vishnu is the Lord who gives Moksha.

 

Now, in the Second Prasna of the First Kanda of Krishna Yajus Samhita occur the following mantra:

 

 

"divo vA viSNuvuta vA pRithivyAH maho vA viSNuvuta vAntarikSAt|

hastow pRNasva bahubhirva savyairA prayachchha dakSiNA dota savyAt||"

 

Taittiriya samhita (1-2-13[8])

 

Meaning:

 

"O Visnu! Fill my hands with the different kinds of wealth(gems, gold etc) brought from heaven, earth, maharloka and space. Give from Your right hand and left hand."

 

 

This verse shows Vishnu is the owner of all worlds.

 

 

 

Rg Veda

 

7.100.3

 

"trir devaH pRthivIm eSa etAM vi cakrame shatarcasam mahitvA |

pra viSNur astu tavasas tavIyAn tveSaM hy asya sthavirasya nAma ||"

 

 

Meaning:

 

"This Divine Visnu, measured this earth with a hundred(innumerable) splendours with three steps in grand manner(mahitvA). Let Visnu , Mightier than the mightiest(tavasas tavIyAn), be our protector(pra astu). He is the most ancient and ever living(sthavirasya), His name(asya nAma) is glorious[because of being the protector](tveSaM hi)."

 

The reason for His name being glorious is identified as His being the protector which is said about in the previous of the mantra.

 

Vishnu is Supreme. He is identified with Narayana (Narayana Vidmahe Vasudevaya Dimahe Tanno Vishnu Prachodayat) in Narayana Suktam. Purusha Suktam calls the wives of the Purusha as 'Sri' and 'Hri', ie, Lakshmipathi is mentioned as Supreme here.

 

Rudra's faults and his absence during pralaya, Brahma's creation account, faults of Indra, Vayu, Varuna and the creation of Prajapatis, Rudras, Adityas, etc. are mentioned in the Veda. Hence, it follows that all names pertains to Vishnu alone, who is Supreme.

 

EDIT: A bit more, this time from Upanishads:

 

nArAyana parambrahmah| tattvam nArayanah parah||

nArAyana parojyothir| AtmA nArAyanah parah||"

 

 

 

Mahanarayana Upanishad says,

 

"evam nArAyanAsIt na brahma neSAna|"

"nArAyanah parambrahmah|"

 

Subala Upanishad says,

 

"esha sarva bhUtAntarAtmA apahatapApmA divyo deva eko nArAyanah"

 

The last verse is important. It says Narayana is the indweller of everyone. Hence, this verse alone validates the Vaishnava viewpoint of taking Rudra, Brahma and other devas to mean Narayana whenever these Devas are called 'Supreme'.

 

Since you can't link Shiva to Narayana, due to the laws of Sanskrit, it follows that your arguments hold no soap.

 

Of course, a complete ignoramus like you will never see the point.

[Avinash]

In a previous post, you wanted the complete text from Satapatha Brahmana, which says that Vishnu's head was cut off. Here is the text: -

 

From 14.1.1

6. Now he who is this Vishnu is the sacrifice; and he who is this sacrifice is yonder Âditya (the sun). But, indeed, Vishnu was unable to control that (love of) glory of his; and so even now not every one can control that (love of) glory of his.

7. Taking his bow, together with three arrows, he stepped forth. He stood, resting his head on the end of the bow. Not daring to attack him, the gods sat themselves down all around him.

8. Then the ants said--these ants (vamrî), doubtless, were that (kind called) 'upadîkâ'-'What would ye give to him who should gnaw the bowstring?'-'We would give him the (constant) enjoyment of food, and he would find water even in the desert: so we would give him every enjoyment of food.' - 'So be it,' they said.

9. Having gone nigh unto him, they gnawed his bowstring. When it was cut, the ends of the bow, springing asunder, cut off Vishnu's head.