Jahnava Nitai Das Posted March 23, 2001 Author Report Share Posted March 23, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>To say Krishna is the Ultimate is correct as he is an incarnation of Vishnu. However the statement 'Krishna is the source of all avatars' is to be taken with a pinch of salt. With a lot of salt actually, when we consider the fact that Krishna was an avatar himself and yet another fact that such a statement is in direct contradiction to the Vedas and the Puranas too.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It's nice to see you figured it all out. Thouands of saints, sadhus and pandits throughout India for centuries just weren't able to catch the contradictions you discovered. Perhaps you think too much of yourself. <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>While there is nothing wrong with such sectarian beliefs from a devotional perspective, there is this small problem that it is distorting the original story.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Good that you are in possession of the original story. Thats probably where the saints, sadhus and acharyas of other sampradayas went wrong. They couldn't get their hands on the original story. I agree that those who belong to the Gaudiya lines should take the effort to study other Vaishnava conclusions to understand their positions, but I would have to ask the same from others who are not Gaudiyas. Some people are brought up in South India, where Vaishnavism is a caste, and they think the conlusions there are the only authentic Vaishnava siddhanta. It would be useful for such people to study the vaishnava schools of North, West and East India to develop a non-biased understanding of what vaishnavism is. For example if one were to think that only ignorant people worship Krishna as the source of all incarnations, it would be a very foolish conception. The Madhva and Ramanuja sampradayas do not accept Krishna as the source of incarnations, though they both differ on the position of the original form. For Sri Vaishnavas the original form is Narayana, for Madhva's there is no original form - or they are all original forms. Gaudiyas do not deny that Kshirodakashayi Vishnu incarnated as Krishna, but Kshirodakashayi Vishnu is Himself an incarnation of Garbhodakashayi Vishnu, who is an incarnation of Karanadakashayi Vishnu, who is an expansion of Shankarshana, who is an expansion of Vasudeva, who is an expansion of Balarama, who is an expansion of Krishna from Goloka Vrindavana. The chatur-vyuha expansions exist in the paravyoma, whereas the purusha avataras exist in the jagat. Thelinkig point between the expansions of the Lord from the para-vyoma and the avataras of the Lord in the jagat is Garbhodakashayi Vishnu. Thus it is through Garbhodakashayi Vishnu that the Lord appears in the material world each time. The devas approach the banks of the kshira-udaka (milk ocean) and recite the purusha-sukta prayers. Though unable to see the Lord, Brahma receives a message from within his heart about the impending incarnation of Godhead. Garbhodakashayi Vishnu is non-different from Lord Krishna, as are all the forms of the Lord. When the Lord chooses to cover certain aspects of His existence and opulence, he becomes a particular form and is called by a particular name. When the same form chooses to reveal those covered oppulences he is known by a different name. Thus Garbhodakashayi Vishnu incarnating as Krishna is not as a different person. It is the same Lord revealing His hidden qualities. The original qualities of the Lord displayed in full are those of Lord Krishna. When Lord Krishna covers certain qualities, he is known as Garbhodakashayi Vishnu. When he [bold]again reveals those qualities[/bold] he is again known as Lord Krishna. I don't expect people who get their understanding of avatara from the Hindu newspaper or from the Sri Krishna TV serial to understand these concepts. It requires a study of the pancharatras. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sushil_kanoria Posted March 23, 2001 Report Share Posted March 23, 2001 Hare Krishna Viji & other devottes, Please accept my humble Obesainces to all of you & all glories to Srila Prabhupada !! First of all Let me clarify one thing that whatever I have quoted, is taken from " The teachings of Lord Chaitanya" I have not concocted anything from my side, & I do belive in whatever is written there. May be I am not having enough proof to prove all these things, but still I have great faith in all the acharyas who says that Krishna is the supreme, because all the great acharyas have gone through all those puranas & then after doing thorough study they have concluded that Krishna is Supreme. One more thing I want to tell you During all the Avatar Shiva will come in some or other form to provide service to the krishna Avatar or to please him, like during Ram avatar he descended as Hanuman (HAnuman is called as Rudra Avatar, & who is Rudra ?? ofcourse Shiva) & Hanuman served Ram as a servant, So still you think that Shiva is Supreme personality of GODHEAD ?? One more thing I would like to add is that Shiva is also called "Mahadev" what does it mean ?? "DEVO MAI MAHAN" which means Greatest among demigods, So he is supreme among the demigods, BUT He is not the supreme personality of GODHEAD. So the final conclusion is that KRISHNA IS THE SUPREME PERSONALITY OF GODHEAD. Hope you will try to understand me. Hari Bol, Sushil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
animesh Posted March 23, 2001 Report Share Posted March 23, 2001 Hi Shvu, Siva may be supreme among demigods and not the Supreme Personality of Godhead. But the argument given by you is not proper. You have mentioned that Siva served Rama as Hanuman. This does not prove anything. Krishna was Arjuna's charioteer. Will you say that Arjuna is supreme and not Krishna? Rama once worshipped Siva. Will you say that Rama is not supreme but Siva is? You have cited some examples from scriptures which indicate Vishnu to be supreme and not Siva. But, you will also find examples which show Siva to be supreme and not Vishnu. Please note: I am not trying to say that Siva is greater than Krishna. All I am trying to say is that if scriptures show one person to be serving another, then it does not prove (though it may be true) that the one who is served is more supreme than the one who is serving. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
animesh Posted March 23, 2001 Report Share Posted March 23, 2001 Oops, why did I make this mistake? My previous post should have been addressed to Sushil and not Shvu. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shvu Posted March 23, 2001 Report Share Posted March 23, 2001 Hi Sushil, <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>...So still you think that Shiva is Supreme personality of GODHEAD ?? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> God forbid! No, I don't think so anymore. Your enlightening information has changed my life. Thank you. Cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jahnava Nitai Das Posted March 23, 2001 Author Report Share Posted March 23, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Siva may be supreme among demigods and not the Supreme Personality of Godhead. But the argument given by you is not proper. You have mentioned that Siva served Rama as Hanuman. This does not prove anything. Krishna was Arjuna's charioteer.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Lord Krishna would carry his father's shoes on His head. The Vedic conception of God goes beyond that of most other religions in the world. Not only is He the greatest who is served by all, but he is the servant as well, engaging in the most menial services to His devotees. Who could comprehend that right now in Vaikuntha the supreme all-powerful Godhead is carrying the shoes of His devotee on His head. Krishna is acintya, completely inconceivable. Supremacy has nothing to do with service. Service is even performed by God out of love. <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I wrote that I had read somewhere about no. of puranas having more than 1000. That was a mistake.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually there are 1000 or so Puranas, though I don't know how many are in existence at present. There are 18 maha-puranas compiled by Vyasa (and Parashara Muni in the case of Vishnu Purana). Each of the 18 maha-puranas has 18 upa-puranas (subsidiary texts). Each of these 18 upa-puranas has 18 upakhyanas which focus on a particular event or personality. Thus there are supposed to be over 5,000 puranas, but only a fraction of them are available in human socity at present. The upa-puranas and upakhyanas are usually written by one of Vyasa's disciples or a rishi. Due to the large number of texts and the inability to verify whether they are genuine, most of these texts are ignored. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love Posted March 23, 2001 Report Share Posted March 23, 2001 It is quite amusing to see so many ekightened people fighting over who is superior of Vishnu and Shiva. We forget that they both are powers (one the power that sustains and the other which destroys. Besides, when it is time for Shiva to play Vishnu bows down to Shiva and when it is time for Vishnu, Shiva disappears. Both are the Supreme. The only importance is knowing which of the two is active at any time. When Lord Krishna says that He is the Supreme, it only means in context of the fact that it was the time when Vishnu had to take vataar to protect earth and so Vishnu is active. Brahman, Vishnu, Mahesh are perfect examples of absolute rebirth and self-sacrifice. Each of them considers the other two as the Supreme One, when they all are Supreme. It is not out of any modesty but the only way of keeping various powers in harmony and out of confusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jijaji Posted March 24, 2001 Report Share Posted March 24, 2001 The variety of schools, namely, Vedas, Saankhya, Yoga, Paasupata, and Vaishnava came to be formulated to satisfy the varying tastes of men. Though their directions may appear to point differently, yet, as one pursues any school with the constantly ordained it, after a shorter or longer journey, as the case may be, one will ultimately reach the Supreme, which is Omnipresent, even as all rivers flowing in different directions reach the ocean, which appears at land's end everywhere and envelops the globe in all directions. Like the ocean, the Supreme envelops all - sarvam aavrtya tishthati.. To whatever school one may belong, one ought not to linger or stop on the way. If a person adheres to the chosen path without faltering, God will dower each votary, whatever his predilection, with constancy of faith to pursue his path with devotion. All of you are familiar with the scene at a railway station, as soon as a train arrives and the passengers emerge out of the platform. A passenger will be stormed by drivers of a variety of conveyances, each trying to snatch his baggage in order to attract him to his vehicle. In whichever conveyance he ultimately decides to travel, his destination is his home. Similarly the protagonist of each school of religious thought try to attract the seeker after truth by saying that their school is the easiest and surest way to realise the truth. When it is recognised that all paths lead to the same goal, there is no necessity to change the path one is already following. There is also no room for hatred towards a person following a different path. The temple, the God installed therein, and the form of worship, all these three may differ for different people, due to difference in taste. But what is required of one is to persist in the path one is following. From Shri Kanchi Kamakoti Peetam Website. jijaji Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ggohil Posted May 1, 2001 Report Share Posted May 1, 2001 Jai Sri Krsna: Hi Shvu: --- “Once there was a question about why Matysa, Kurma and Varaha also being Avatars were not worshipped on the scale of Rama. The answer was a fish, tortoise and a boar are simply not as interesting as Rama. Similarly Krishna being the most heroic and dashing of all the avatars of Vishnu, became the most popular. Then some people went a little farther by reversing the direction and said Vishnu himself is an extension of Krishna!” -- I think we are free to see the Lord in a form that most appeals to us, and he will reciprocate accordingly. This does not mean that Lord’s other avatars are any less significant. He takes Avatars as he sees fit for a particular situation. We are free to see him in any way we want, that is his Grace, just like you are free to see the whole scenario as comical situation and hence make fun of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ggohil Posted May 1, 2001 Report Share Posted May 1, 2001 Hare Krsna: -------------------------- “Chandrashekhara Bharati of the Shankara line said, "You don't see the Lotus feet of the Lord. Why are you fighting over what his face looks like?" ----------------------------- This is could only be true if one assumes that Sri Krsna did not reveal himself to anyone since the beginning of the human race. Secondly, I always thought that Sri Krsna’s featured were described in the Vedas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shvu Posted May 1, 2001 Report Share Posted May 1, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>This is could only be true if one assumes that Sri Krsna did not reveal himself to anyone since the beginning of the human race.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Just like you refer the Supreme Lord as Krishna, there are others [shaivas] who refer to this same Supreme Lord as Shiva. There are also others who worship this same Supreme Lord in other forms. <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Secondly, I always thought that Sri Krsna’s featured were described in the Vedas.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No. Krishna is described in detail in the Vaishnava literature as Shiva is described at length in the Shaiva literature. Cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ggohil Posted May 1, 2001 Report Share Posted May 1, 2001 Hare Krsna: Hi Shvu: Referring to original context. --- “Just like you refer the Supreme Lord as Krishna, there are others [shaivas] who refer to this same Supreme Lord as Shiva. There are also others who worship this same Supreme Lord in other forms” --------- Yes, but in all cases the Lords face is revealed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shvu Posted May 1, 2001 Report Share Posted May 1, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Yes, but in all cases the Lords face is revealed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And in all cases, the face would have been different. Basically, it will be of the form that was worshipped. For example, there is a Ganapathi Upanishad, according to which Ganapathi is the source of everything. The person who composed it saw the Supreme Lord in the form of Ganapathi. According to Chandrashekhara Bharati, when one worships with devotion, he will see the Lord, irrespective of what his face is. That is more important than fighting over which form is the real one. It is a fact that some Vaishnavas are more interested in putting down Shiva than in worshipping Vishnu and vice versa for some Shaivas. His message is for such people. Cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kailasa Posted May 1, 2001 Report Share Posted May 1, 2001 >Rama & Krishna are Poorna avatars of Lord Narayana. Whether you like it or not you have to accept that Lord Narayana is the Ultimate God. No living entity, including Brahma, Lord Siva, or Narayana, can possess opulences as fully as Krisna. >Once there was a question about why Matysa, Kurma and Varaha also being Avatars were not worshipped on the scale of Rama. The answer was a fish, tortoise and a boar are simply not as interesting as Rama. The incarnations of Rama and Dhanvantari displayed His fame, and Balarama, Mohini and Vamana exhibited His beauty. Dattatreya, Matsya, Kumara and Kapila exhibited His transcendental knowledge. Nara and Narayana Åñis exhibited His renunciation. So all the different incarnations of the Lord indirectly or directly manifested different features, but Lord Krisna, the primeval Lord, exhibited the complete features of Godhead, and thus it is confirmed that He is the source of all other incarnations. >Similarly Krishna being the most heroic and dashing of all the avatars of Vishnu, became the most popular. Anyone who thinks that God and the demigods are on the same level is called an atheist, or päñaëòé. Even the great demigods like Brahma and Siva cannot be compared to the Supreme Lord. In fact, the Lord is worshiped by demigods such as Brahmä and Siva (çiva-viriïci-nutam). Yet curiously enough there are many human leaders who are worshiped by foolish men under the misunderstanding of anthropomorphism or zoomorphism. Iha devatäù denotes a powerful man or demigod of this material world. But Narayana, Visnu, or Krisna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, does not belong to this world. He is above, or transcendental to, material creation. Even Sripada Sankaracarya, the leader of the impersonalists, maintains that Narayana, or Krisna, is beyond this material creation. However, ......... people (håta-jïäna) worship the demigods because they want immediate results. > So much that some people have been led to believe that worshipping Vishnu will not fetch the same results as worshipping Krishna. One name Krisna is equal 1000 names Visnu. >I must also add that the Sad-Vaishnavas [Madhva] do not have the concept of Krishna is the source of all avatars. Srila Madhvacarya says: vividhaà bhäva-pätratvät sarve viñëor vibhütayaù. Krisna is the original Personality of Godhead (krisnas tu bhagavän svayam). All the other incarnations proceed from Lord Visnu. Even Lord Siva affirms that liberation can be achieved only by the mercy of Visnu. Lord Siva says, mukti-pradätä sarveñäà viñëur eva na saàçayaù: “There is no doubt that Visnu is the deliverer of liberation for everyone.” Bg 7.15 > Let alone Shiva, even Narayana and Vishnu are considered as extensions of Krishna! I can safely say that such a statement has no support from any Vedic text and also the Puranas. Skanda Puräëa: kåñëa-kämäs tadä gopyas tyaktvä dehaà divaà gatäù samyak kåñëaà para-brahma jïätvä kälät paraà yayuù “At that time the gopés, who desired Kåñëa, gave up their bodies and went to the spiritual world. Because they properly understood Kåñëa to be the Supreme Absolute Truth, they transcended the influence of time.” It is said in the same Vedas, brahmaëyo devaké-putraù: “The son of Devaké, Krisna, is the Supreme Personality.” (Näräyaëa Upaniñad 4) In the Mokña-dharma Krisna also says, prajäpatià ca rudraà cäpy aham eva såjämi vai tau hi mäà na vijänéto mama mäyä-vimohitau “The patriarchs, Siva and others are created by Me, though they do not know that they are created by Me because they are deluded by My illusory energy.” Lord Siva is not an ordinary living being. He is the plenary portion of the Lord, but because Lord Siva is in direct touch with material nature, he is not exactly in the same transcendental position as Lord Viñëu. There are many yogeçvaras having different proficiencies in these wonderful powers, and the topmost of all of them is Lord Çiva. Lord Çiva is the greatest yogé, and he can perform such wonderful things, far beyond the ordinary living beings. All the controlling deities like Viñëu, Brahmä and Çiva are different manifestations of the Paramätmä feature of the Supreme Personality of Godhead Kaçyapa warned her that actually Lord Çiva is not connected with anyone, nor is anyone his enemy. Since he is one of the three controllers of the universal affairs, he is equal to everyone. His greatness is incomparable because he is a great devotee of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. It is said that among all the devotees of the Personality of Godhead, Lord Çiva is the greatest. He is called Mahädeva, or the greatest of all demigods, and no one is equal to or greater than him in the material world. He is almost equal with Lord Visnu. Lord Siva never accepts any luxurious dress, garland, ornament or ointment. But those who are addicted to the decoration of the body, which is finally eatable by dogs, very luxuriously maintain it as the self. Such persons do not understand Lord Siva, Vaiñëavänäà yathä çambhuù: Sambhu, or Lord Siva, is the ideal Vaiñëava. He constantly meditates upon Lord Rama and chants Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama Rama, Hare Hare. Sankarsana is also worshiped through Lord Çiva; the snakes which cover the body of Lord Çiva are representations of Saìkarñaëa, and Lord Çiva is always absorbed in meditation upon Saìkarñaëa. One who is actually a worshiper of Lord Çiva as a devotee of Saìkarñaëa can be released from false, material ego. Lord Visnu replied: Brahmä, Lord Çiva and I are the supreme cause of the material manifestation. I am the Supersoul, the self sufficient witness. But impersonally there is no difference between Brahmä, Lord Çiva and Me. Lord Brahmä, the supreme person within this universe, said: My dear Priyavrata, kindly hear attentively what I shall say to you. Do not be jealous of the Supreme Lord, who is beyond our experimental measurements. All of us, including Lord Çiva, your father and the great sage Mahärñi Närada, must carry out the order of the Supreme. We cannot deviate from His order. >Just like you refer the Supreme Lord as Krishna, there are others [shaivas] who refer to this same Supreme Lord as Shiva. There are also others who worship this same Supreme Lord in other forms. éçvaraù paramaù kåñëaù sac-cid-änanda-vigrahaù anädir ädir govindaù sarva-käraëa-käraëam “There are many personalities possessing the qualities of Bhagavan, but Krisna is the supreme because none can excel Him. He is the Supreme Person, and His body is eternal, full of knowledge and bliss. He is the primeval Lord Govinda and the cause of all causes.” (Brahma-saàhitä 5.1) >And in all cases, the face would have been different. Basically, it will be of the form that was worshipped. For example, there is a Ganapathi Upanishad, according to which Ganapathi is the source of everything. The person who composed it saw the Supreme Lord in the form of Ganapathi. "Those whose intelligence has been stolen by material desires surrender unto demigods and follow the particular rules and regulations of worship according to their own natures. I am in everyone’s heart as the Supersoul. As soon as one desires to worship some demigod, I make his faith steady so that he can devote himself to that particular deity." BG 7.20-21 >says in one place that Vishnu should not be worshipped because it will make Shiva angry! O my dear King, Hiranyakasipu was always drunk on strong-smelling wines and liquors, and therefore his coppery eyes were always rolling. Nonetheless, because he had powerfully executed great austerities in mystic yoga, although he was abominable, all but the three principal demigods—Lord Brahma, Lord Siva and Lord Visnu—personally worshiped him to please him by bringing him various presentations with their own hands. PURPORT In the Skanda Puräëa there is this description: upäyanaà daduù sarve vinä devän hiraëyakaù. Hiraëyakaçipu was so powerful that everyone but the three principal demigods—namely Lord Brahmä, Lord Siva and Lord Visnu—engaged in his service. Madhväcärya says, ädityä vasavo rudräs tri-vidhä hi surä yataù. There are three kinds of demigods—the Ädityas, the Vasus and the Rudras—beneath whom are the other demigods, like the Maruts and Sädhyas (marutaç caiva viçve ca sädhyäç caiva ca tad-gatäù). Therefore all the demigods are called tri-piñöapa, and the same word tri applies to Lord Brahma, Lord Siva and Lord Visnu. SB 7.4.14 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shvu Posted May 2, 2001 Report Share Posted May 2, 2001 Clarification: When I say their literature, I mean their respective Agamas and Puranas. They are not part of the Vedas, but constitute an important part of their traditions. Cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sushil_kanoria Posted May 2, 2001 Report Share Posted May 2, 2001 Hare Krishna Kailasa, First let me rfile:/range/monogram/e-leap/Home.htm the mistake which you have commited. ------------One name Krisna is equal 1000 names Visnu. ------------ It is not one name of Krishna but one name of Rama, & Three names of Rama is equal to one name of Krishna. & Mr. Shvu, We are not showing down Shiva by proving Krishna as the Supreme personality, but We are just putting the facts in front of all of you. Hari Bol, Sushil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kailasa Posted May 2, 2001 Report Share Posted May 2, 2001 Hare Krisna sushil_kanoria! Thank for correction. There are many people, which actually nothing interests, besides that coincides from them today by interests. jayasriradhey ...but We(??) are just putting the facts in front of all of you. It I and sushil_kanoria, and not only. Why to you to not begin to worship Siva not doing(making) distinctions? You not such fanatic as I. shvu I completely agree with you, it is an example absolutely for unreasonable. But so on fingers it is possible to show the one who can not give reason from sastra. >It is getting better and better. One of attributes satva-guna - man becomes joyful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shvu Posted May 3, 2001 Report Share Posted May 3, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>...We are not showing down Shiva by proving Krishna as the Supreme personality, but We are just putting the facts in front of all of you.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> All this is very very touching. But I think I should say that I am not taking the position of a Shaiva. So I have no problems with people claiming Vishnu to be superior to Shiva. Of course, now there is a third angle of Krishna with the latest relation being, Krishna = 3 * Rama = 3000 * Vishnu and Vishnu > Shiva It is getting better and better. Cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sushil_kanoria Posted May 4, 2001 Report Share Posted May 4, 2001 Hi Kailasa, Nice Retort. Hari BOl, Sushil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sirona Posted May 9, 2001 Report Share Posted May 9, 2001 Dear friends, I read your discussion about who is superior (Vishnu or Shiva) with great interest and I find it very funny. I am a Catholic coming from a Lutheran country where such childish discussions about doctrine appear sometimes and I thought that followers of dharma would be wiser and more tolerant than Christians. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the case. I think that Vishnu and Shiva are emanations of the same Divine showing different aspects of this Divine. In the Gita Krishna says: "Among the Rudras I am Shiva." So Shiva is in Vishnu and Vishnu is in Shiva. If you turn to one or to the other depends from your personal taste. May the Lord be with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
animesh Posted May 9, 2001 Report Share Posted May 9, 2001 Hi Sirona ji, It seems that you have read Gita completely. I understand that such kinds of arguments may seem to be childish but I like them, because, as you said, it is funny. :-) Even though the question as to whether Siva or Vishnu is superior may not seem to be important, there is one positive side to this kind of discussion. Sometimes members post verses from scriptures to support their point. I have learnt many things about many scriptures from these postings. So, I do not find anything wrong in this. On the contrary, I find it very interesting. Moreover, in a religion, which has got such a vast literature, it is not surprising that there are so many different kinds of beliefs. As Vivekananda once said, "I am not surprised that there are so many sects. I am surprised why thousand more are not there." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shvu Posted May 9, 2001 Report Share Posted May 9, 2001 I am a Catholic coming from a Lutheran country where such childish discussions about doctrine appear sometimes and I thought that followers of dharma would be wiser and more tolerant than Christians. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the case. Human beings are exactly the same all over the world, so it is not surprising. But it is a fact that Shaivas and Vaishnavas have lived in harmony for over 2 thousand years, thus showing a high tolerance level. For example, a famous Shaiva center in South India known as Dharma-stala was named by a Vaishnava Acharya, Vadiraja-Thirtha of Udipi. The Shiva-linga in this place was consecrated by him. Cheers [This message has been edited by shvu (edited 05-09-2001).] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shvu Posted May 9, 2001 Report Share Posted May 9, 2001 Mistake. [This message has been edited by shvu (edited 05-09-2001).] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sushil_kanoria Posted May 9, 2001 Report Share Posted May 9, 2001 Hare krishna Sirona, First of all let me tell you, we are not fighting here to show the supremacy of Shiva or Vishnu, but trying to put the facts in front of those people who don't know the reality. As you said, Krishna says in Bg: I am shiva amomg rudras. He also says I am meru among all the mountains. So it does't mean that he is mountain. Actually krishna mean to say that he is the best among all the things. Hope now you are clear what he mean to say. Hari Bol, Sushil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shvu Posted May 9, 2001 Report Share Posted May 9, 2001 I think a complete posting is needed on this topic. The Vaishnavas say that Vishnu is the only entity worshipped in the Vedas. According to them Rudra = Vishnu; Shiva does not mean Lord Shiva, but 'the pure one', which again is Vishnu. Thus they make it all look consistent. The Shaivas do the same with Shiva. The Purusha Sooktam, of course has been a hot topic of debate for centuries because there is no name in it. Coming to the Puranas, there are both Vaishnava Puranas and Shaiva Puranas which accordingly glorify Vishnu and Shiva respectively. This has been discussed earlier on this thread. Briefly, it is a question of etymology, and there is evidence to support both positions. The trick is to avoid all the negative sources, mention only the supportive verses and then say, my position is the right one. Cheers ------------------ Dear is Plato, but dearer still is Truth - Aristotle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.