More Shiva and Vishnu Discussion

[Guest guest]

Oh boy, here we go again....

 

Another stupid, brain-dead, disgruntled ex-ISKCON devotee, who thinks that because he can see ISKCON's problems, it therefore makes him a sAstra-jnAni who knows all sAstra and their conclusions.

 

Vishnu being Supreme God is just a stupid ISKCON belief. Well, never mind that it is also the belief of most vedAnta-AcAryas prior to ISKCON. Never mind that it is in shruti as well as purAna-s. The point is, ISKCON believes it, and ISKCON is stupid, then Chitta, who dislikes ISKCON, is suddenly an expert in sAstra. Yes, friends, this is the argument.

 

 

let me state my credentials first: before I came to know the Hare Krsnas about two decades ago, I had had met an innumerable group of spiritual men and women of differing and diverse persuasions.

 

 

Translation: he met a bunch of Sai Babas, Vivekanandas, Ramkrishnas, etc who flattered him and made him feel good about himself....

 

 

The Vaishanavites here quoted the puranas so liberally to prove that the Shaivite religion is wrong about their belief that Lord Shiva is Lord Vishnu's equal. Their cocksureness, in this case, merely showed how much that they have understood the Puranas and Veda Vyasa's compilation.

 

 

So purAna-s are pramAna to you? I doubt that. What do you think of the following, which is from padma purAna, and which has something rather disagreeable to say about the Shaivite religion (among others)? This is from padma purAna, uttara-khaNDa, adhyAya 236:

 

pArvatyuvAca

tAmasAnicashAstrANisamAcakShvamamAnagha

saMproktAnicatairvviprairbhagavadbhaktivajitaiH

teShAMnAmAnikramashaHsamAcakShvasureshvara || 6.236.1 ||

 

pArvatI said:

"O sinless one, tell me about the tAmAsic texts which were composed by the brAhmanas bereft of devotion to the Lord. O lord of gods, tell me their names in a sequence."

 

rudra uvAca

shR^iNudevipravakShyAmitAmasAniyathAkramam.h || 6.236.2 ||

 

teShAMsmaraNamAtreNamohaHsyAjj~nAninAmapi

prathamaMhimayaivoktaMshaivaMpAshupatAdikam.h || 6.236.3 ||

 

Rudra said:

"O goddess, listen. I shall tell you about the tAmAsic texts in a sequence. By merely remembering them even the wise ones would be deluded. First I myself proclaimed the Shaiva, pAshupata (texts) etc."

 

Now, I'm not in ISKCON, and this is not an ISKCON translation, nor is it from an ISKCON edition.

 

The point is, some things are so simple and obvious (like the fact that Vedas proclaim Vishnu to be Supreme God) that even ISKCON can figure it out. Unfortunately, the Rajan Parrikars of this world are ever too busy drinking American coffee to actually pick up a Sanskrit book and read it.

 

 

[gokulkr]

Hey u shaivatees believe if someone worships shiva then he is using brain.

 

if someone believes vishnu as supreme, u blame him that he is brainwashed.

 

its a joke.

 

i have already told only vaishnav puranas are satvic.

 

i dont want to comment on "ISKCON" since i respect them. let me talk on other vaishnavas. other vaishnavas worship vishnu according to their sampradaya.

 

Even before "Chaitanya Mahaprabhu" many noble saints such as Lord Ramanuja, Lord Madhvacharya, Lord Nimbarka, Lord Vallabha, Lord Raghavendra ..... have preached vaishnavam in their own way. But common factor is that all of the above saints & their disciples have proved "Advaitham & other pseudo religions (such as Shaivam, Buddhism, Jainism) as false.

 

Till now, no shaivate has proved that vaishnavam is false. in fear of getting defeated they just blabber something & vanish away.

 

If you have gutts, why dont u reply to my points. otherwise accept defeat.

 

dont think telling Lord vishnu & Shiva as equal, you can just escape.

 

if u are not replying means, it is clear that you have been defeated.

 

OM NAMO NARAYANA.

 

 

[Chitta]

As there are three distinct responses to my post, I am afraid, the readers here would have to bear with my individual responses to them.

 

Let me take on 'gokulkr' first.

 

"gokulkr" claimed that he knew that "...all puranas including 'SAivaite puranas' are compiled by Veda Vysasa itself" --- I am gladden to hear that. Wherefore his nescience, I wonder!

 

Vyasa is the compiler of the Puranas from age to age; and for this age, he is Krishna-Dvaipayana, the son of Parasara.

 

While He compiled them into the 3 cardinal categories, He did not intend, as "gokulkr" had mischieviously misinterpreted, that "Those who want to realise 'God' should only consdier satvic puranas". That is "gokulkr's" mischievious interpretation.

 

The Lord who categorised the puranas into the 3 categories exemplified the three Gunas in the puranas: that they 3 were part and parcel of His Being complementing what he had said of the Gunas in chapters 13-14 of the Gita. Everything emanates from Him ---nothing, not even tamasa guna, has an independent existence. Otherwise, He would not have called Himself the Chief among the thieves.

 

This is the problem with people like the Vaishnavites, especially the ISKCON/Ritvik people --- they would misquote, or quote things out of contexts, just like the Christians and misrepresent facts. For instance, as they feel the so-called 'Tamasic' puranas are not meant for men of God, why then they cite passages from the Skanda purana to support "Tulasi worship", etc. If the Purana is Tamasic, then, they should not even touch it with a barge pole --- but they do! Why? Well, so long as anything serves their little purposes of purveying half-truths, they would resort to such low tactics.

 

To this day, they cannot reconcile why Vyasa, the Krsna-incarnate, should allow puranas to contradict themselves!

 

Please quote Bhaja Govindam --- by all means; but quote it in conjunction with His other eulogies too. Why don't you show that Adi Shankara did praise and waxed lyricals about other Incarnations too. Aren't you being mischievious by presenting but one facet.

 

 

[Chitta]

If you need to clarify any issues about me, you might want to check with me straight --- I need no proxy in your form to interprete my life, erudition or experiences. Would your Vaishnava pride allow me to do that for myself? Because your conjectures of me are as reckless and misinformed as your knowledge of the scriptures.

 

I am no Shastra-jnani but I am no simpleton to parrot what I had been brainwashed to believe. I checked, double-checked, re-checked, re-re-checked with the Vaishnavite scholars and others before I came to the inconvertible conclusion that the Vaishnava philosophy is wrong.

 

Contrary to the Ritvik writer's belief, I did not meet some Babas and Ramakrishnas; but many eminent Vaishnava Gurus and a few others from other sampradayats as well.

 

When I underook this task of extirpating misinformation here, I knew that someone would happily quote the oft-quoted ISKCON/Ritvik quotation from the Padma Purana, where Lord Shiva had purportedly denigraded Himself. Scholars of pre-eminent status have said that Padma Purana, together with a couple of other Puranas and Upanisads, had been ravished by fanatics during the Vaishnava/Shaivite war. Much of what we have (today) in the Puranas that the scholars had quoted contain disgraceful interpolations, additions and deletions.

 

The quoted passage, for example, is the work of not Vyasa but that of the fanatical Vaishnava who wanted to disgrace the Shaivites. If you need proofs of this, you may write to me for volumes of references.

 

As if this blunder was not enough, the Ritvik writer lied that "...(the) Vedas proclaim Vishnu to be Supreme God...". I challenge the writer to cite this from an authoritative translation of the Veda that he claimed this is found. I shall, then, prove from rich sources that Vishnu's status in the Vedas was subservient to Rudra; and worse still, in the entire 4 Vedas, there is only one place where Krsna's name was mentioned.

[Chitta]

You claimed that "Chaitanya Mahaprabhu,...Lord Ramanuja, Lord Madhvacharya, Lord Nimbarka, Lord Vallabha, Lord Raghavendra ..... have proved 'Advaitham & other pseudo religions (such as Shaivam, Buddhism, Jainism)' as false".

 

I shall take up the point about Chaitanya Mahaprabu at another time (for I require an elaborate discussion to prove that he was never opposed to Advaitam) --- as to your point that the others had 'proved' 'Advaitam' false, I would have to tell you that you as wrong as the Hare Krsnas. Yes, they argued with all and sundry but "no" they never managed to convince the world that theirs was the only path.

 

You are consumed with the Christian proselytizing zeal.

[Tarun]

Have u perused dazama-skandha ZrImad BhAgavatam?

Therein is written - Lord Siva came to rescue His bhakta Bana who had captured Aniruddha, Krishna's grandson.

U know this history?

ps - what happened to "John Sang kRSNa 'fore George" thread?

 

[Guest guest]

"The quoted passage, for example, is the work of not Vyasa but that of the fanatical Vaishnava who wanted to disgrace the Shaivites. If you need proofs of this, you may write to me for volumes of references."

You think so? What do you say of the Shiva Purana story about Lord Nrisimhadeva where after Lord Nrisimhadeva had killed Hiranyakasipu, His anger was so terrible and the universe was being destroyed. The gods appealed to Lord Shiva who appeared there and in the form of a Sharabda bird, killed Lord Nrisimhadeva and is now wearing His skin around His waist and His skull around His Neck. What do you think of this. A Shivaite denegrating Lord Vishnu? The Shiva Purana reworks many stories of the Shrimad-Bhagavatam and "humiliates" Lord Vishnu.I have the Shiva Purana in four volumes. I can post more of its horrors if you want to hear. I agree with with the verse quoted from the Padma Purana. In vaishnava puranas Lord Shiva is very much respected but in the Shiva(tamasic) puranas Lord Vishnu and Lord Brahma are insulted all the time.

 

 

[Chitta]

So, do you agree that Padma purana contains interpolations? You, therefore, also agree (as you quote the so-called Shaivite antics) that the Vaishnavites have engaged in the tit-for-tat puerile conduct? Hence, you have, like most other Vaishnavites, had the knowledge that there is something egregiously wrong with how they have treated the so-called Demi-gods in the Vaishnavana puranas?

 

The Padma purana is but one example of a text that had been mutilated by fanaticism.

[gokulkr]

i salute in the way you spoke the truth about "Shaiva puranas".

 

To your notice : whatever i had quoted about lord Veda Vyasa is directly taken from works of "Sri Madhvacharya". If you tell me as a fantic, then you are insulting Holy Madhvacharya. So without knowing anything in full dont come to conclusion.

 

Hare Krishna

Jai Shri Krishna

Om Namo Venkateshaya Namaha

 

[gokulkr]

I dont come under "Gaudiya Sampradaya". I am not a ISKCON Member.

 

Ok i agree that i dont know lot more about "Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu". But i know that Lord Chaitanya is incarnation of Lord Krishna. So i surrender to his feet.

 

Moreover, i dont want to comment about ISKCON.

I come under "Vallabha Sampradaya" & "Sri Vaishnavam" (Mixer of both).

 

<--- You are consumed with the Christian proselytizing zeal -->

This is a great joke.

 

I always show facts revealed in scriptures by Holy people like Lord Ramanuja , Lord Madhvacharya ..... Thereby if you feel my quotes are silly, then you are just insulting holy people like Lord Ramanuja, Lord Madhvacharya ... as watever i quote is not my view but theirs.

 

 

[gokulkr]

See i had posted "enclyopedia of Defeat of Advaitham" in the spiritual discussion forum. I am updating it every 4 days.

 

It shows how great vaishnava saints like Lord Ramanuja, Lord Madhvacharya, Lord Raghaavendra... have squashed "Advaitham" .

 

Point : Whatever i post in the enclyopedia is directly taken from authorised scriptures of the holy saints. Not even i have added a single word of my own.

 

U can visit the enclopedia and read it. but please dont pollute it by posting your anti-vaishnavate comments on the enclyopedia forum sine it will be a insult to holy persons as i am not putting my views in the enclyopedia.

 

[gokulkr]

Do you know wat is meant by satvic & tamasic. do u know what will happen if a person follows "tamasic purana" . if a person follows tamasic puranas then he/she will gradually become tamasic. then what will happen if one becomes tamasic ? Anwser is given by Lord Raghavendra. Following quote is given by holy sri sri Raghavendra (so dont make fun of it)

 

 

---

"The Lord Vishnu is full of auspicious qualities and absolutely faultless. There is no virtue that does not exist in Him. He is the Lord of Ramaa, Brahma and all other devathas at all times and in all ways. His form is beyond prakrithi (nature). His body is made up of jnana and ananda. He is omnipresent and omniscient. All the jivas are subservient to Him. Mahalaksmi who is ever liberated is His consort. All jivas (souls) are not equal. There is gradation amongst them and they are of three types. Whatever state they attain finally is in keeping with their intrinsic nature. The sattvik souls attain moksha which is a state of eternal bliss. The tamasic souls attain eternal hell where there is all pervading darkness. This is a state of eternal sorrow. The rajasic souls keep rotating in samsara always, experiencing both happiness and sorrow. The shastras declare such a three fold classification and gradation of souls. It can be seen everywhere in this world. There are several schools of philosophy which go against these tenets and declare that there is no God, no dharma, this world is false; there is nothing but void; the jivas and Brahma are the same; there is no three fold classification or gradation, all the jivas are equal to Brahma, the Vedas are not true, Brahman is nirguna (attribute less), nirakara (formless). None of these philosophies are correct. The world that we see is real; this world has a master; he is neither nirguna nornirakara. The shastras declare Him to be nirguna and nirakara because He is devoid of the three qualities of sattva, rajas, and tamas (unlike us). For the suffering soul His grace is the only means to attain salvation which is eternal bliss. Those who forsake Him will never be truly happy. "

---

 

From the above statement of "sri sri Lord Raghavendra" it is clear that one who becomes tamasic will go to external hell. one who forsakes Lord Vishnu will never be truly happy.

 

So saivaites any other comment ? Remember that whatever quoted above is given by Lord Raghavendra. So opposing to it is a great sin. We are all ordinary people. But Lord Raghavendra was incarnation of "Lord Prahlada". We all know his power, grace & skill of "Lord Raghavendra".

 

So why dont u shaivatees agree to Holy Raghavendra & surrender to him rather than debating wastily. if you surrender to him many good things will happen because hes so compassionate & great. Lord Raghavendra loves the people who surrenders to Lord Vishnu rather than indulging in nonsense debate.

 

I think saivatees agree to Holy Raghavendra. I think this discussion is over.

 

Jai Shri Krishna.

Om Sri Guru Raghavendraya Namaha.

[Chitta]

You have very consistently proved here that you lack scriptural knowledge and the knowledge of the entire history that led to all these divisions in the Indian society.

 

Earlier when you quoted Veda Vyasa, you gave your readers the impression that even the interpretation of what the Gunas were, was that of Vyasa. Now, you claim that it was that of Madhva, who evolved a dualistic system of philosophy out of the Prasthana-Traya. <font color="red"> The classification was not that of Vyasa. Period.</font color>

[gokulkr]

We are all ordinary people. But Lord Ramanuja, Lord Raghavendra are great.

 

why dont u people bow to their views ? try to be humble. of u resist their views, then ..... sorry i will not tell.

 

Anyway, read atleast Lord Raghavendra says. Surrender to his feet rather than jumping with ur tamasic stories.

[gokulkr]

yes i dunno anything. i lack scripturual knowledge. i am less worth than a straw.

 

Whatever my gurus tell i humbly accept and try to follow as much as possible.

 

you may be a great saivate scholar. but i am not a great vaishnavaite scholar. i just surrender to Lord Raghavendra & Lord Vallabha. i am a child & they are my father. i try to follow them.

 

i dont probe whether their view is correct or not. if i do its a sin. i accept whatever they say.

 

i had alwayas quoted "Lord Madhvacharya" & "Lord Raghavendras views" only. But u people are not accepting them & jumping as though u know everything.

 

Om Sri Guru Raghavendraya Namaha

[Chitta]

First, you quoted Madhva and now Raghavendra, another pontiff who comes in the tradition of the Madhva lineage. You cannot prove that Vyasa did, in fact, mean the meaning that you had attached to the classification of the Puranas.

 

I am sorry but I have to point out to you an important aspect of Sri Raghavendra's later life, before his expiration. As he soared higher in Bhakti, he declared in an open court that was presided by a Muslim emperor that <font color="red"> one who makes a distinction between Lord Shiva and Lord Vishnu, and claims that one manifestation is 'higher' than the other, one shall make Hell one's eternal abode.</font color> It is worth your while, especially in your earnest effort to propagate your faith, to check this historical fact up immediately.

 

I know, next you would quote a train-load of other pro-Vaishnava scholars and believers and exhort me to surrender to them. Wouldn't the Shaivites and Samarthans too quote their Mutt leaders and pontiffs, and archaryas to do the same? Would you, then, accept their exhortation? If you don't, why should the others?

 

The discussion has just warmed up, to say the least!

[Chitta]

Just a correction --- I am not a Shaivite.

 

If you have accepted the Gurus you quoted, then, it is your problem. I wonder why you think others who do not belong to your sampradayats should 'accept them'. It is the same as what the others insist that you should accept what Sudheendra Tirtha of Kashi Mutt or Vidhyadhiraj Tirtha

of Gokarn Mutt say; or should surrender to Sachidananda Saraswati of Kavale Mutt or Sadyojat Shankarashrama of Chitrapur Mutt.

 

[gokulkr]

You only came here to debate. i am regular member here coming to chant & discuss .

 

moreover, this forum is mostly filled with "vaishnavas".

 

Lord Raghavendra has squashed "Advaitham" & proved it false. at this point whats point in me to consider saivaite/advaite guru's views.

 

It is proved that "Earth is round". if u still yell that it is flat just because some people are yelling i cant help. moreover i will not listen to people yelling telling themselves as a guru that earth is flat means they are not gurus.

 

But lord raghavendra told the truth. Lord Raghavendra had never quoted that "Lord Vishnu & Lord Shiva are equal". It may be your interpration.

 

Moreover, i have 6 volume book telling everything about Lord Raghavendra. (note it is not printed by any vaishnava school). In that, theres no such point as u tell.

 

Moreover, i had also enquired to Dwaita mutt regarding, Lord Raghvendra's view on Lord Shiva .They told that Lord has told to respect all deities, but still Lord Vishnu is claimed superior and Lord Rudra is just a demigod.

 

For your convinence, dont misintrepret Lords teachings. if you have heard from any person then its false. I have proof for that.

 

I think discussion is over since Lord Raghavendra has proved "Lord Vishnu" as absolute truth & others as demigods only.

 

Om Guru Shri Raghavendraya Namaha

[gokulkr]

i am not ramming anyone. i love all. i see krishna in all.

 

Lord Madhvacharya is moolaguru of "Lord Raghavendra".

 

Lord Raghavendra only preached that was preached to his holiness by Lord Madhvacharya.

 

Heres the essence of Lord Madhvacharyas Philosophy :

Acharya Madhva&#8217;s philosophy:

shrIman Madhva Mate harih paratarah

Satyam Jagat

Tattvato bhedah

jeeva ganaah hareh anucharAh,

nichochha bhavam gatAh

Muktih Naija sukhAnubhUti

amalA bhaktishcha tat saadhanam

Haixyaadi tritayam pramaanam

akhilam Amnaayaika vedyo harih

 

A translation of the above :

ViShNu is the supreme God,

The world is real,

The five-fold difference between God, living and non-living beings is an eternal fact,

All living beings are dependent upon Hari for their existence

There is a hierarchy amongst living beings, that is eternal (without beginning or end)

Salvation lies in the soul experiencing its intrinsic joy,

Salvation can be attained only through pure and unsullied devotion of God means of knowledge are sensory perception, inference and holy scriptures

Hari is to be perceived in His nature through the holy scriptures and only through them.

 

This is what also Lord Raghavendra preached. Lord Raghavendra never preached opposite in view of his guru.

 

Your letters show that you have poor knowledge in "Dwaitham".

 

Moreover, for the sake of discussion lets consider your point. Lord Ramanuja told directly that one should worship lord hari only. "All" other demigods are "bhaddha atmas" controlled by Supreme Lord. So are u telling that Lord Ramanuja will goto **** because that holiness lord told that shiva is a "bhaddha atma". hahaha.

 

u know that , Lord SriRanganatha himself many times told to his devotees that listen to Lord Ramanuja and surrender to his feet. This means, Lord Ramanuja is in vaikunda (not in ****).

 

This proves that Lord Raghavendra had never told "Lord Shiva" & "Lord Vishnu" Equal. Because Lord never tells lie.

 

[Chitta]

There is no point in becoming emotional. If you cannot sustain a good debate, then, you should not have entered the arena. Being dogmatic does not help prove your point. Like I said, it is worth your while to check all your volumes of Ragavendra's teachings. <font color="red">What I have quoted is from the works that I have obtained from Mantralaya, the nerve centre of his teachings.</font color> You might want to check with your sources before you deny yourself the right to know the Truth.

[gokulkr]

im not emotional. since u use arrogant words such as ramming, i am telling about myself.

 

anyway, bring to me the mantralya sources you saw. i will belive only after seeing with my own eyes.

 

 

[Chitta]

As you discuss more and more with me, you are revealing how much you are in want of information and knowledge. But that wouldn't be bad at all provided you did not, with that scanty knowledge, try to preach to others and misled people. I am afraid, therefore, I would have to set the record for you and innocent people here.

 

First, you try to misrepresent Vyasa by quoting Madhva; and now, to misrepresent Ragavendra, you're quoting Madhva. I do not see the logical flow in your argument. You would want me to accept what you're saying based on reckless, spurious conjectures.

 

You might want to remain religiously focussed.

 

As if your purposeful obfuscation was not enough, you have now introduced Ramanuja into the picture too. <font color="red">If I am going to be led into that discussion, then, I would allow you to get away with your initial prevarication, i.e., that Vyasa believed in your interpretation of what the Gunas that the Puranas represent.</font color>

 

Please prove the portion in red first. Do not obfuscate the issue by all the ramifications.

[Chitta]

Just as you have the volumes of works with you in the comfort of your home, I too have mine in my house. Fret not though --- write to them, ask for their source, they would be just too glad to assist you. In this day and age, information can be obtained fast.

 

In the mean time, please get back to the original discussion, which I have highlighted in red in the above posting.

[gokulkr]

hey Lord Madhvacharya never misintrepreted Lord Vyasa. mind your words. wat right u ahve to use the word "misintrepret" . its insulting the guru madhvacharya.

 

moreover, i never misintrepreted Lord Raghavendras teachings. i only quoted as told by Lord Madhava & Lord Raghavendra . i never told my view.

 

By using misintrepret u have insulted both gurus. just for this debate u dont have any bloody rights to tell that guru have "misintrepreted" vyasa .

 

wat do u know first ? what have u learned ? wat rights u have to comment on Lord madhvacharya. Lord madhva had defeated all. He reigns supreme. but u tell him he misintrepreted vyasa.

 

dont think urself as too much. I have surrenderd to these gurus because they have proved their opponents view is false & their philisophy is correct.

so im sure that path i choosen is correct.

 

noone has no right to tell Lord madhva misintrepted everything. Lord Madhva was first one to teach real Bhakti marga and holiness only gave "correct" meaning of all the scriptures....

 

 

[gokulkr]

Following incident depicts how Sri Vijayendra Thirtha proved "Shaivate" as tamasic. i have extracted it from www.dvaita.net if u want u can see there.

 

-------

Sri Vijayîndra Tîrtha very easily criticised Lingaraja by giving many proofs which showed that Vedas are true and that vedas are not composed by any one(ApouruSheyaa). Vedas are known by three words namely 'Veda', 'Shruthi' and 'Drushthi'. Sri Vijayîndra Tîrtha explained the meaning of these words as follows: Veda meaning 'Vedyatha ithe vedaha' which means Vedas are the ones that are understood, Shruthi meaning 'Shrooyatha ithe Shruthihi' which means that Vedas are the ones that are being heard and Drushthi meaning 'Drushyatha ithe Drushtihi' which means that vedas are the ones that are seen. So, Vedas are the ones that are understood, heard and seen and it is not composed by any one. This way, Sri Vijayîndra Tîrtha proved his point that Vedas are 'ApouruSheyaa'.

Then came the topic who is supreme. Lingaraja with the help of Kourma, Lainga puranas started to state that Lord Shiva is the supreme and challenged Sri Vijayîndra Tîrtha how he can prove that Sri Naaraayana is supreme. Sri Vijayîndra Tîrtha said although it is mentioned that Lord Shiva is supreme in puranas like Lainga, Kourma etc., this point is against the Shrutis and Saathvika puranas and so it is not true. Also, puranas like Lainga,Shaiva etc., are thamasik. Lingaraja became furious and demanded how Sri Vijayîndra Tîrtha can prove that Lainga, Kourma puranas are Thamasik.

 

Vaishnavam Naaradeeyam Cha thatha Bhagavatham Shubham Garudam Cha thatha Paadmam Varaaham Shubha Darshane ShaDeThani Puranaani Saathvikaani Mathaani why Bramhaandam BrahmaVaivartham Maarkaandaiyam thathaiva cha BhavidhshyadhVaamanam Braamham Raajasaani Nibhodhamae Maathsyam Kourmam thatha Laingam Shaivam Skaandam Thathaiva cha AagnaeYam cha ShaDethani Thaamasa NirayaPradaha

 

which means that there are six puranas that are Saathvik. These puranas are Vishnu, Naarada, Bhaagavatha, Garuda, Padma and Varaaha. The Raajasik puranas are Bramhaanda, BramhaVaivartha, Maarkaandaeya, Bhavishyothara, Vaamana and Bramha. The six thamasik puranas are Maathsya, Kourma, Lainga, Skaanda, Shaiva and Aagnaeya.

Sri Vijayîndra Tîrtha also mentioned that the Smruthi Shaastras are of three kinds Saathvika, Raajasa and Thamasa. The judges got convinced about the proof given by Sri Vijayîndra Tîrtha and told Lingaraja that the proof has been given. The judges continued to state that since the debate was based on Shastras and only texts that can be believed are the Saatvika ones, so, as per the Shrutis and Saatvika Puranas, Sri Naaraayana is the Supreme (Sri Hari Sarvothamma) and Sri Vijayîndra Tîrtha is correct in this arguement.

Lingaraja now turned the point towards Lord Narasimha. He started telling that Lord Narasimha was defeated by Sri Veera Bhadra. Sri Vijayîndra Tîrtha criticized this by stateing that the information about Lord Narasimha being defeated by Lord Veera Bhadra is in Skaanda Puraana. Skaanda puraana is Thamasik and hence cannot be taken as a proof. Sri Vijayîndra Tîrtha very cleverly solved this point by quoteing that in Shaiva puraana, it is mentioned that Lord Rudra in the form of Sharabha defeats Lord Narasimha. But, in Skaanda puraana, it is mentioned that Lord Veera Bhadra defeats Lord Narasimha. So, who defeated Lord Narasimha? Is it Lord Rudra or Lord Veera Bhadra? If you say it is Lord Rudra then, it is against Shaiva puraana. If you say it is Lord Rudra then it is against Skaanda Puraana. Lingaraja's argument was based on the Thamasa puranas and Sri Vijayîndra Tîrtha created a suspision in Lingaraja's argument. Lingaraja became so confused and all the people who were watching the argument were amazed at the way Sri Vijayîndra Tiirtha disproved Lingaraja's point by creating this suspision. Sri Vijayîndra Tîrtha continued further and said that the authentic information is only in Saatvika puranas and since Lingaraja's point is based on Thamasik puranaas which is against various Shrutis, Smrutis and Saatvika puranas, it is a bluder to tell that Lord Narasimha was defeated by Lord Rudra or Lord Veera Bhadra. Sri Vijayîndra Tîrtha described Lord Narasimha as 'Narasimhasya KaeValam Jyothireka ManaaDyantam' which means that Lord Narasimha is Infinite and who has no destruction. For the one who is infinite and who is undestructable, how can it have an end? So, as mentioned in the Saatvika puranas, Lord Narasimha destroyed Sharabha. Sri Vijayîndra Tîrtha gave one more proof from a Shruthi as 'Harim Harantha Manuyanthi VishVasyeeShaanam VrushaBham Matheenaam' which means that Lord Rudra who is praised by 'Eeshaana' word was destroyed by Lord Hari(i.e. Lord Narasimha). Also, the Smruthi states that

 

BramhaanaMindram RudramCha Yamam Varunamaevacha| Nihasya Harathe YasmaaThasMyaaDharereHoochayathe||

 

Which means that Lord Bramha, Lord Indra, Lord Rudra, Lord Yama, Lord Varuna get destroyed by Lord Hari (i.e. Lord Narasimha) during the Pralaya period. This means that Lord Hari is the supreme(Sarvothamma), Lord Hari is the creator, Protector and destroyer of these worlds, Lord Hari is the ParaBramha as mentioned in the Vedas, Shrutis, Smrutis and Puraanas.

This way the argument went for many days, and everyday, Sri Vijayîndra Tîrtha turned out to be the winner and all the points that Lingaraja upheld were very easily turn down by Sri Vijayîndra Tîrtha. At last, Lingaraja became speechless and accepted the defeat by bowing his head.

Needless to say, the judges concluded that Sri Vijayîndra Tîrtha was won the argument.

 

-----------

 

Thus from above incident Sri Vijayindra thirtha proved "Lord Vishnu alone is Supreme" and "Shaivate" are tamasic. Any doubts. Note : Sri Vidyathirtha took vyasa quotes as it is without any modifying it.