More Shiva and Vishnu Discussion

[gokulkr]

Once a king (i forgot king name) proclaimed rewards to any scholar who proves which god is supreme.

 

forthat king told thee scholars one by one shhould apprach a particular pillar & sing verses in praise of their gods.

if pillar bents down on hearing verses of supreme god, then the scholar will be honored.

 

one by one everyone came. A shaviate scholar too came. he sang praises to shiva. but pillar didnt budged.

 

atlast, Lord Perialwar (father of Goddess "Andal") came and sang praises to Lord vishnu. immediately pillar bent down.

 

So everyone got convinced that lord perialwar has won and "Lord Vishnu" alone is supreme.

 

The above incident is recorded in history & also in "Alwars history". u can buy a "alwars history" book and verify it.

 

[Guest guest]

Sri Vallabhacharya proved to a group of "Shaivaite" Scholars that Lord Vishnu alone is supreme.

 

Heres the incident depcited. i extracted it from www.pushtimarg.net . if u want u can see it there.

-----------

At the age of 11-12, when he went for the Darshan of Sri Jagannatharayaji, Sri Vallabhacharya was informed about the prevailing debate on philosophical scriptures in the court of the king. He also came to know that the opponents have dominated the Vaishnava scholars. He immediately rushed to the court, took the charge of the debate, and defeated all the opponents.

In this very assembly the king placed four questions to be answered by the Pundits and Acharyas. The questions were:

Which Scripture is the best of all scriptures?

Which deity is the best of all deities?

Which Mantra is the best of all Mantras?

Which duty is the best of all duties?

Many learned Pundits and Acharyas gave different answers to these four questions but the assembly could not reach on any common conclusion. At last, at the hint of Sri Vallabhacharya, all four questions were unanimously placed before Lord Sri Jagannatha (Sri Krshna). Alongwith this, a blank paper, an inkpot and a pen were placed in front of Lord Jagannatha. The doors of the temple were closed. When the doors were opened, the piece of paper with a verse answering all the four questions written on it was found. The verse was:

Ekam shashtram devaki putra gitam

Eko devo devakiputra eva;

Mantropyekas tasya namani yani,

Karmopyekam tasya devasy seva.

Meaning: Gita sung by Sri Krshna, son of Devaki, is the best scripture.

Sri Krshna, son of Devaki, is the best deity.

Names of Sri Krshna are the best Mantra.

Service of Sri Krshna is the best duty.

Sri Gopinathaji, elder son of Sri Vallabhacharya has described this incidence in an authorizing letter dated 30 of Vaishakha month of V.S.1595 in Sanskrit to his Tirtha Purohit (An authorized Brahmin that performs ritual at sacred places of pilgrimages on arrival of concerned pilgrims) of Sri Jagannathapuri.

----------------

 

Thus from above incident Sri vallabacharya (1535 AD -1587 AD) proved that "Lord Vishnu" is Supreme god. No god is equal to Vishnu.

[Guest guest]

Jai Ganesh

RE

("Lord Vishnu alone is Supreme" and "Shaivate" are tamasic)

By this logic Lord Ram Who prayed to Lord Siva is Tamsic?

Gopis who prayed to Lord Siva are Tamsic.

 

In Bhagvat 8.7 21-35 Prajapati are praying to Lord Shiva as supreme Lord.

We know better,dont we, they must be deluded by the affect of the poison?

Shridhar Swami (whose commentary on Bhagvat is accepted by Shree Chetanya maha Prabhu) said, those who see the two personalities as different, are simply engaged in useless discourse.

It is not that the 18 Purans are satvik or tamsic, but it describes the glories of the supreme lord who is in full control off those gunas and beyond. Why would Shree Vyasdev compose them surely not to confuse us?

There is enough evidence in each one of them, as well as extol, declares oneness off the supreme lord, in different role.

Only the followers each camp might have problem and sight the differences. An individual soul who is not aligned to any such camp have no problem, seeing both the personalities as one.

Lord Shree Krishna says in Bhagvat Gita I am the creator, maintainer and destroyer. Of Aditya I am Vishnu, of Veda I am Samaveda (Brahma in directly) of Rudra I am Shankar.

You may want to read this how ever you want, or twist and turn to suit your position, but for me it is quite clear answer to Arjuns question how may I worship you?

Jai Shree Krishna

 

[Guest guest]

Dear "Chitta"

 

Let's try to get a few things straight before we begin:

 

You don't know Sanskrit.

You are ignorant of sAstra.

You don't have a clue as to the basic axioms of vedAnta.

 

All your objections are based on a desire to have a tete-a-tete with ISKCON, rather than an objective examination of what is actually found in sAstra.

 

Try to keep all this in mind before your open your mouth to speak (or in this case, your keyboard to type). The more you type, the more you astound us with your utter ignorance of all things vedAntic.

 

Now, let us examine a few of your "arguments" logically, as I believe they will provide some interesting entertainment value:

 

 

I knew that someone would happily quote the oft-quoted ISKCON/Ritvik quotation from the Padma Purana,

 

 

The quotation comes from the Critical Edition of the padma purAna published by Nag Publishers. Nag Publishers has nothing to do with any sectarian group. The same quotes are also in several other editions of the padma purAna. There is no evidence that they are interpolated.

 

 

where Lord Shiva had purportedly denigraded Himself.

 

 

While I can excuse you for not knowing Sanskrit, the fact that an English translation was provided means that you could trouble yourself to read it, before propping up a strawman.

 

Shiva states in the padma purAna that he created the doctrines of Shaivism and pAshupata for the people of Kali Yuga who would have no devotion to the Lord Vishnu. This is not the same as degrading himself. That he knows his position vis-a-vis Vishnu is not self-denigration.

 

Try to read in a discriminating fashion, rather than resorting to emotional histrionics. It does not take much intelligence to understand these very straightforward statements, but it stands to reason that one should be willing to make at least some use of it.

 

Anyway, mAdhvas rely first and foremost on shruti rather than purAna to base their siddhAnta. If you want to insist, against all evidence to the contrary, that your favorite purAnic shlokas are real while those contradictory to them are interpolation, then by all means go ahead. Just realize that when you embrace purAnas which are contradicted by shruti, you will simply make yourself out to be a laughing stock.

 

 

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.

 

 

"Scholars of pre-eminent status?" OK dear, please show us the evidence of these "scholars" that the verses quoted earlier were interpolated. Please note that by "evidence," I am not referring to published statements by scholars, but rather the actual *basis* upon which they make their statements.

 

I think we both know you cannot do this, because you just accept their opinions blindly with no attempt at cross-examination. But by all means, prove me wrong. I think we will find this quite entertaining.

 

Please note that this same chapter of the padma purAna (containing the famous mAyAvAdaM asacchAstraM verse) was also quoted by shrI vijayindra tIrtha around 15th-16th century in response to the criticisms of apayya dikshita, and the latter had absolutely *no* response to it. Why did he not simply reply that the verses were interpolation, if that was so obvious?

 

Probably because it is difficult to prove that the same interpolation can occur in multiple different recensions of a purAna separated in both time and space.

 

 

Much of what we have (today) in the Puranas that the scholars had quoted contain disgraceful interpolations, additions and deletions.

 

 

 

I think what you mean to say is that, if the sAttvik purAna says something you do not like, then it is interpolation. But if a tAmAsic purAna says something you like, then it is pramAna.

 

This is the gist of it, is it not? Or is there some more, objective standard upon which you decide which purAna-s are acceptable and which are not?

 

Real vedAntins accept only those parts of the purAna-s which are consistent with shruti. That the majority of sAttvik purAna-s are consistent with shruti, while much of tAmAsic purAna-s are not, is no coincidence. There is a reason why some purAna-s are labelled as being for those in "ignorance," for those in "passion," and for those in "goodness."

 

Chitta, in case you could not figure it one, one usually does not rely on texts in the "ignorance" class in order to get knowledge. You know, knowledge and ignorance are sort of like... opposite things.

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Funny. It was you who accused the ISKCONites of, and I quote:

 

"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, apparently you dislike selective quoting of the purAna-s. Yet when something is quoted which you do not like, you respond with unfounded accusations of "interpolation," thus giving yourself an excuse to reject it.

 

Where I'm from, we call that hypocrisy.

 

 

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 will do better than that, since you have nowhere defined what constitutes an "authoritative translation" (most likely something is "authoritative" to you as long as you do not disagree with it...). Therefore, I will provide the original Sanskrit, from the shruti itself, stating that Vishnu is the supreme Deity. Of course, this requires knowledge of Sanskrit, which you do not have. But that is not my problem, since it is you who implicitly claim to know how to recognize an "authoritative" translation from one that allegedly is not.

 

idaM viSNurvi cakrame tredhA ni dadhe padam

samULhamasya pAMsure || RV 1.22.17 ||

 

trINi . vi cakrame viSNurgopA adAbhyaH

ato dharmANi dhArayan || RV 1.22.18 ||

 

 

As you can see, these mantras name Vishnu as the preserver of the world, and indicate that He traversed the whole world, which is collected as the dust in His footprints. All attributes of a Supreme Deity, wouldn't you say?

 

tad viSNoH paramaM padaM sadA pashyanti sUrayaH

divIva cakSurAtatam || RV 1.22.20 ||

 

This states that the seers see always that "Supreme Abode" of Vishnu. Hmmm, "supreme abode..." does that, like, mean He's God or something?

 

tad viprAso vipanyavo jAgRvAMsaH samindhate

viSNoryat paramaM padam || RV 1.22.21 ||

 

And yet another reference to the "Supreme Abode" of Vishnu. Is it me, or do you see a trend here?

 

Now here is a reference to Vishnu as the creator of the three worlds:

 

viSNornu kaM vIryANi pra vocaM yaH pArthivAni vimamerajAMsi

yo askabhAyaduttaraM sadhasthaM vicakramANastredhorugAyaH || RV 1.154.1 ||

 

Hmmm, so not only is He the preserver, but also the creator? All functions of a supreme Deity, wouldn't you say?

 

pra tad viSNu stavate vIryeNa mRgo na bhImaH kucaro giriSThAH

yasyoruSu triSu vikramaNeSvadhikSiyanti bhuvanAni vishvA || RV 1.152.2 ||

 

Now this says that the three worlds abide in Vishnu's three paces. So, again, we have an explicit reference describing Lord Vishnu as the maintainer of the three worlds. That hardly sounds like the function of an administrative devata. Or maybe you think such a position can be applied for?

 

pra viSNave shUSametu manma girikSita urugAyAya vRSNe

ya idaM dIrghaM prayataM sadhasthameko vimame tribhirit padebhiH || RV 1.154.3 ||

 

And another reference to Vishnu, "who alone made, by three steps, these three worlds." Gee... He did that all by Himself with three steps? Does that make Him, OMNIPOTENT or something? And what is one of the qualities of a Supreme God?

 

yasya trii puurNaa madhunaa padaanyakShiiyamaaNaa svadhayaa madanti ya u tridhaatu pR^ithiviim uta dyaam eko daadhaara bhuvanaani vishvaa || RV 1.154.4 ||

 

And yet again, Vishnu as the maintainer of the three worlds. Hey, Atlas only held up one world. Vishnu holds up all three!

 

tA vaM vAstUnyushmasi gamadhyai yatra gAvo bhUrishRN^gAayAsaH

atrAha tadurugAyasya vRSNaH paramaM padamava bhAti bhUri || RV 1.154.6 ||

 

And yet again, the "Supreme station" of Vishnu. Hey, who does this Vishnu guy think He is living in that Supreme Station? Oh wait, He's the Supreme God. That's right.

 

 

My primary task now is to dismantle the Vaishnavites' brittle argument here. i.e., that Lord Vishnu/Lord Krsna is the Supreme, and that all others (espcially Lord Shiva) are his subordinates.

 

 

Yeah, those dumb Vaishnavites. Maybe they should read the following shruti:

 

agnirvai devAnamavamo viShNuH paramaH || aitareya brAhmaNa 1.1.1 ||

 

Oh wait, that says that among devatas, Agni is "lowest" and Vishnu is "highest." So, that supports what the Vaishnavas say! Oh, well never mind. We don't agree with that, so let's ignore it!

 

Those poor, dumb Vaishnavites, they should have read the following shruti mantra:

 

aniravamo devatAnAM viShNuH paramaH || taittirIya saMhitA 5.5.1 ||

 

Err, wait a minute! That's also saying the same thing, that Vishnu is the highest devata!

 

Gosh, I'm sorry. All those shruti mantras talking about this Vishnu guy as the creator and maintainer, the creator of the three worlds by His three steps, of the one in the Supreme Abode, the one who is higher than all other devatas.

 

But, never mind! Let's just ignore those references and make fun of ISKCON devotees instead! Yeah.

 

 

I shall, then, prove from rich sources that Vishnu's status in the Vedas was subservient to Rudra;

 

 

I'm sorry, poor dear!

 

asya devasya mILhuSo vayA viSNoreSasya prabhRthe havirbhiH

vide hi rudro rudriyaM mahitvaM yAsiSTaM vartirashvinAvirAvat || RV 7.40.5 ||

 

This makes it abundantly clear that Rudra derives his power from worship of Vishnu!

 

Game, set, and match. In case you couldn't figure it out, you've been defeated. Not that this takes any special intelligence, since you have none.

 

But fear not! There is always plenty of room in the Hindu pantheon for one such as you. Why, I heard the Sai Babas are looking for a few good men to blindly hawk their philosophy and pretend to know all scriptures while simultaneously knowing not one of them. And then there are the Hawaiian Shaivites who prove all sorts of great philosophical concepts by merely saying them and then writing "Om Namah Shivaya." And if you like eating hamburgers and coffee, the Ramakrishna Mission will certainly take you in!

 

It's ok, you'll find some Hindus to accept you for who you are. Don't fret.

 

 

 

[gokulkr]

hey i have already explained why Lord Rama & Lord Krishna prayed to Lord shiva in this forum itself. read it.

 

shaivatees always cling on the incident lord rama worshipped shiva and they always yell throught their life withour understanding real concept.

 

dont intreret puranas such as bhagavatham by urself. its a sin. we should analyse the meaning of the sathvic puranas with the help of learned persons. go and catch a good guru & plead him to tell the meaning of "In Bhagvat 8.7 21-35 " . okee...

 

 

 

[gokulkr]

first of all try to be humble.

 

try to quote from valid scriputures without making yout intrerpretation.

 

all the proofs i have given are taken directly from "Alwar History", "www.dvaita.net", "www.pushtimarg.net". so i myself didint quoted anything.

 

if you feel my quoted are foolish , then you are insulting Holy saints.

 

please read the last three proofs given above by me in this thread.

 

after reading the proof, if you dont agree that the above incidents have happened in this kali yuga,( ie., Lord Vallabhacharya, Lord perialwar, Lord Sri Vidyanantha Thirtha proving "Saivam" false) then i had to take you as a "atheist". thats all.

 

Jai sri krishna

 

[gokulkr]

hey our query regarding "why lord vyasa compiled tamasic & rajasic puranas "? this question is answered clearly by another "Guest". read that.

 

why dont u people register youerselves and put ur discussions in ur name rather than "Guest". when two or more guests come, it becomes confusing to identify.

 

[Chitta]

I, really, am amazed at your ability to talk through the hat. We do not require commercial breaks like you. If you intend to join in the fray, please read and respond to my postings on 7th Feb 2004 (2.00 am & 2.05 am). Red herring, exit.

[Chitta]

This post is to the Guest who posted his message on 7.2.2004 at 9.17 am. Please don't go. I am coming to you soon after my lecture.

[gokulkr]

Jai Sri Krishna

 

I have already posted 3 proofs. please read prev 3 posts directed to you.

 

u should read all my prev 3 posts (directed to u) till u understand.

 

i think i have given the proof, if u dont have heart to accept it, why dont you go to saibaba as "Guest" told, since saibaba is for people like you.

 

Anyway "Guest" is here to debate with you. He/she is more scholarly than me. so debate with him. since i dont want to debate with people who has no heart to accept the truth.

 

Jai Sri Krishna

Om Srimathe Ramanujaya Namaha

Om Namo Venkatesha

Om Namo Narayana

[gokulkr]

Please pardon me for all the harsh words used by me to you.

Out of my love towards Lord Madhvacharya & Lord Raghavendra , has made me to utter the harsh words.

 

I am not a fanatic.

 

I am just a jiva earning for Lord Krishna, the supreme.

 

i agree that Lord Raghavendra told that "Siva & Vishnu" are same.

 

but still Lord Raghavendra has advised us to avoid tamasic puranas as quoted by veda vyasa. but wait...

 

that means we should consider "Lord siva & respect him" in the way Lord Shiva as referred in "Sathvic puranas".

 

But "Vishnu is reverred as supreme in all sathvic puranas, vedas & all genuine scriptures". whats the status of our "beloved" Lord shiva ? here it is :

 

Lord Shiva should not be confused as demigod.

 

The verse 45 of 'Sri Brahma Samahitam' states the transformation of Lord Krishna -

 

"kSIraM yathA dadhi vikAra vizeSa yogAt

saJjAyate na hi pRthag asti hetoH

yaH zambhu tAm api tathA samupaiti kAryAd

govindam AdipuruSaM tam ahaM bhajAmi"

 

Meaning: Just as milk itself is transformed into curd (yogurt), but yet they both are neither SAME nor DIFFERENT from each other, so also I adore my Beloved primeveal Lord Govinda, Who has transformed Himself into Lord Shiva for the performance of divine lilas.

 

Here are some more excerpts, taken from Brahma Vaivarta Purana in relation to Lord Siva.

 

"Lord Siva is said to be a portion of Lord Krishna and arise out of the left side of Krshna's body.

 

"vAmarddhAGgo mahAdevo

dakSiNo gopikApatiH"

 

The left half became Siva and the right became the Husband of Gopis.

 

He is dearly loved by Krishna.

 

The BVP says it is sin to slander Siva, Who is dearer to Krishna than His own life.

 

Krishna Himself declares:

 

"Among my favorites Brahma is dear to Me.

 

Lakshmi, ever residing on my chest, is dearer than Brahma.

 

Radha is yet dearer, and my devotees are dearer still.

 

Dearest of all is Shankara (Siva); no one is dearer than He.

 

My heart resides with my devotees, My life with Radha.

 

My Self with Sankara, who is dearer than My life."

 

(Bkh,Pkh, KJkh of BVP)

 

Those who are the Excellant Portions of Krishna are intensely devoted to Him.

 

It is not surprising then that Siva, a Portion of Krishna, is His Devotee.

 

We find frequent references to Siva as the BEST OF VAISNAVAS.

 

Accordingly, Siva seeks to become the Servant of Krishna and confesses His own dependence upon the latter.

 

Siva is often portrayed as in constant MEDITATION ON KRISHNA, WEEPING, DANCING with ECSTACY of devotion.

 

Of all those who know Krishna, it is Siva, the BEST OF VAISNAVAS, who knows Him best.

 

Thus, by Siva's Grace a votary may attain faith in Krishna.

 

Siva in fact states that those who oppress Vaisnavas will be punished by Krishna and that the hearts of non-vaisnavas are impure He further exclaims that Vaisnavas are DEARER to HIM than HIS OWN followers.

 

Krishna, Who is filled with Love for His devotees, has made Siva equal to Himself on account of Siva's DEEP Devotion.

 

Krishna asserts that Siva is fully His EQUAL in splendour, knoweledge and virtue.

 

Further, the Divine Forms or Bodies (Sat-Chit-Ananda vigrahas) of Siva and Krishna alone are Eternal, not those of other beings.

 

It is through Siva's Devotion to Krishna, finally, not MERE EQUALITY, but actual IDENTITY is apparently attained:

 

'svapne jAgaraNe zazvath kRSNa dhyAna rataH zivaH

yathA kRSNA stathA zambhur na bhedo mAdhavezayoH"

 

(Brahma Vaivarta Purana-Prakriti khanda II.56.61)

 

"Sleeping or awake, Siva is constantly absorbed in MEDITATION of KRISHNA.

 

AS IS KRISHNA, SO IS SAMBHU; THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE between MADHAVA and ISA"

 

'yo hariH sa zivaH sAkSAd yaH zivaH sa svayaM hariH

ye tayor bhedamAti sthan narakAya bhave nnaraH

 

(Visnu purana.5.33.46)

 

"Whoever is Lord Hari, He Himself is Lord Shiva indeed.

 

Whoever is manifesting as Lord Shiva, He Himself is Lord Hari.

 

Any humanbeing mistakes both the Lords to be different, he/she surely goes to hell.

 

In Vishnu Purana also, VISHNU declares HIS NON DIFFERENCE from SIVA. (V.P.5.33.46-48)

 

Here we find, full justification for the statement in the Narada PancaRatra concerning the BVP as teaching the NON DIFFERENCE between HARI AND HARA.

 

Just as stated in Brahma-Samhita the relationship of Lord Siva and Lord Govinda are compared to that of milk and yogurt. Milk itself becomes TRANSFORMED into yogurt.

 

Similarly, though They both are possessing the same transcendental attributes, They PERFORM different divine pastimes.

 

nimnagAnAM yathA gaMgA devAnAm acyuto yathA

vaiSNavAnAM yathA zambhuH purANAnAm idaM tathA

kSetrANAM caiva sarveSAM yathA kAzI hyonuttamA

tathA purANa vratAnAM zrI mad bhAgavataM dvijAH "

(Srimad Bhagavatam 12.13.17)

 

Just as the celestial Ganges is the most Holy among all the flowing rivers, just as Lord Krishna is the Supreme among all Divine Personalties, just as Lord Siva is the most Exalted Lover of Vishnu, just as the City of Kasi is the most Sacred among all Holy places, Srimad Bhagavatam is also the most fulfilling vow as well as the most elevated Scripture among all other auspicious Puranas.

 

Prayers to Lord Shiva-

 

jagadguro namastubhyaM

zivAya zivadAya ca

yogIndrANAm ca yogIndra

gurUNAM gurave namaH"

 

"Salutations unto Thee, O Teacher of the universe.

Thou art the Lord auspicious and the giver of bliss,

the foremost of the perfect Yogis,

the Teacher of teachers.

Salutations unto Thee."

 

(BVP 4.30.43)

 

Another prayer for Shivaji says-

 

haste 'kSa mAlA hRdi kRSNa tattvaM

jihvAgra bhAge vara rAma mantraM

yan mastake kezava pAda tirthaM

zivaM 'mahA bhAgavatAM' namAmi"

 

 

Meaning-

I salute to the Supreme Devotee, (Maha Bhagavata)

in Whose hand is the a-ksha (A to Z) japamaala,

in Whose heart is the reservoir of Divine Essence of Lord Krishna,on Whose tongue is ever residing the Name of His Beloved Rama,on Whose head is ever flowing Sacred water that washes the Lotus feet of Lord Keshava.

 

My conlusion is "even though Lord Vishnu says Shiva as his equal" in Vishnu purana, we should not read or follow "Shiv purana".

 

why ? because in shiva purana all the chapters directly humilates lord vishnu so reading it only genretes tamasic thoughts. also theres no statement in shiva purana showing that "Lord Vishnu is equal to shiva". so its considered as tamasic. Thats why veda vyasa quoted it as tamasic.

 

i think ure convinced.

 

But in case of Sathvic puranas, Lord Shiva is respected in all means. So we should follow only the "Sathvic puranas" and worship him in the way mentioned in the sathvic puranas.

because by reading sathvic purana, one gets devoted to both -"Lord Vishnu & Lord Shiva".

 

I dont wanna to comment anything on Lord shiva as i dont wanna go to hell.

 

Lord Krishna pardon me if i had told anything ill of Lord Shiva. Also Lord Shiva pardon me if i had told anything ill of any gurus.

 

i think u have understood what i am saying.

 

Om Namah Shivaya

 

Om Namo Narayana

Om Namo Bhagavathe Vasudevaya

Om Namo Venkatesha

 

Jai Shri Krishna

 

[Guest guest]

 

This post is to the Guest who posted his message on 7.2.2004 at 9.17 am. Please don't go. I am coming to you soon after my lecture.

 

 

Oh, I'm just beside myself with anticipation....

 

 

 

 

 

[Chitta]

Dear Guest (who is hiding dastardly behind an anonymity),

 

Would I keep you on tenterhooks? Let me give you the starter before the full course.

 

I welcome you to the world of real debate. As I had said before, you might condescend to allow me to introduce my credentials and background myself. I require no proxy, especially one of an ignoble and mediocre material. Thus, leave it to me, if I see fit, to dilate on my proficiency in anything.

 

My principal object is to dismantle the elaborate belief system of the Vaishnava, and my mention of the ISKCON or the Hare people is by way of illustration and incidental reference only.

 

You said,

 

 

The quotation comes from the Critical Edition of the padma purAna published by Nag Publishers. Nag Publishers has nothing to do with any sectarian group. The same quotes are also in several other editions of the padma purAna. There is no evidence that they are interpolated.

 

 

 

You also <font color="red">claimed,</font color>

 

 

Please note that this same chapter of the padma purAna (containing the famous mAyAvAdaM asacchAstraM verse) was also quoted by shrI vijayindra tIrtha around 15th-16th century in response to the criticisms of apayya dikshita, and the latter had absolutely *no* response to it. Why did he not simply reply that the verses were interpolation, if that was so obvious?

 

 

 

Evidently, you did not bother to read what I had said of the excerpt. The war and rivalry between the Vaishnavas and the Shaivites were so intense that both started tampering with the Puranas, interpolating, altering and corrupting the puranas by inserting new and foreign matters, information and texts which are foreign to the purpose of Vyasa.

 

The puranas of the 1st stratum (which covers the period extending to the reign of Janamejaya) were compiled by Romaharsanaat. Those of the 2nd stratum (which extends to the time of Asima Krishna) were compiled by Ugrasrava (the son of Romaharsanaat). Those of the 3rd stratum covered the period after Asima Krishna till the close of the 4th centurt AD.

 

The puranas were passed on in this fashion. There was no writing, so the compositions passed by word of mouth. In the process, therefore, the fanatical opportunists added their own compositions.

 

Padma Purana is but one of those texts that have suffered at the hands of the rascals. If you were to examine the Venkateshwar Press edition (1880s) version of Padma Purana and Nag Publishers', you would see a world of difference.

 

And it is, therefore, not surprising that your "...multiple different recensions of a purAna separated in both time and space", are no exceptions to the skullduggery.

 

The Vaishnavas are fond of quoting the following interpolations which I have obtained from two different recensions that the Vaishnava so-called Uttama-Adikaris rely on. These are some of the texts that the Vaishnava had purposefully <font color="red">fabricated</font color> to show Lord Shiva denigrading himself:

 

"Addressing Lord Shiva, the Supreme Personality of Godhead said, 'Please make the general populace averse to Me by imagining your own interpretation of the Vedas. Also, cover Me in such a way that people will take more interest in advancing material civilization just to propagate a population bereft of spiritual knowledge.'

 

"Lord Shiva informed the goddess Durga, the superintendent of the material world, 'In the age of Kali, I take the form of a brahmana and explain the Vedas through false scriptures in an atheistic way, similar to Buddhist philosophy.'"

 

[The above is stated in the Padma Purana, and quoted in the Chaitanya-caritamrta (Madhya-lila Ch.6:181-182), that Lord Shiva was requested by the Lord to appear as a brahmana to deviate the human race from Him.]

 

"The mayavada philosophy", Lord Shiva informed his wife Parvati, "is impious (asac-chastra). It is covered Buddhism. My dear Parvati, in the form of a brahmana in Kali-yuga I teach this imagined mayavada philosophy. In order to cheat the atheists, I describe the Supreme Personality of Godhead to be without form and without qualities. Similarly, in explaining Vedanta I described the same mayavada philosophy in order to mislead the entire population toward atheism by denying the personal form of the Lord."*

 

This is also described in the Brhat-sahasra-nama, where Lord Krsna orders Lord Shiva:

 

"In Kali-yuga, mislead the people in general by propounding imaginary meanings of the Vedas to bewilder them."*

 

[The above is found in Padma Purana, Uttara-khand]

 

May it be the puranas, Darsanas, or the Shrutis, the Vaishnavas, like all other opportunists, did not leave things to chance when mutilating the texts to suit their purposes. They inserted texts, deleted words, paraphrased passages, misrepresented symbols, and presented canards unashamedly. Because the Shrutis generally are not the favourite of the hoi polloi, they found the Puranas their vehicle for propagating insulting lies.

 

You asked me,

 

 

Scholars of pre-eminent status?" OK dear, please show us the evidence of these "scholars" that the verses quoted earlier were interpolated. Please note that by "evidence," I am not referring to published statements by scholars, but rather the actual *basis* upon which they make their statements.

 

 

The list, evidently (as any intelligent being would know), cannot be exhaustive, especially when the research work spans a whole anthology of diverse works. (Do not pick holes in me as to why I have not stated all the works. Despite this caution, of course, (I know) you would do just that --- for that would only help you in your desperation to throw the readers off the scent):

 

1. Weber Max: "The Religion of India" --- The sociology of Hinduism & Buddhism;

2. Zimmer, Heinrich: "Philosophies of India";

3. Potter, Karl H: "Presuppositions of India"

4. K.M. Sen: "Hinduism";

5. Chatterjee, Satischandra: "The Fundamentals of Hinduism";

6. J. Gonda: "Visnuism and Sivaism";

7. Sastri, Nalinimohan S: "A study of Sankara";

8. Shri Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham: "Hindu Dharma".

9. Swami Prakashanand Saraswati: "The True History & the Religion of India"

10. K.V. Paliwal, Ph.D: "What Hindus Should do?" (an article)

11. Sadhu Prof. V. Rangarajan: "Who is a Brahmin";

12. Swamy Jyotirmayananda: "Vedas & Varnas";.

13. St Martin's College (Division of Rel & Philo): "Overview Of World Religions";

14. Ronald Inden, Jonathan Walters, and Daud Ali. "Querying the Medieval: Texts and the History of Practices in South Asia"

15. Blavatski: "The Secret Doctrine"

16.

http://www.hindunet.org/srh_home/1996_11/msg00031.html

(papers on the net)

 

17 http://www.swami.org/sanga/archives/pages/volume_three/m132.html

(papers on the net)

 

I would advise you to write to the authors to find out how they conducted their research, and what the basis of their findings was, and what verifiable scientific methology that they had used to insure their works against the charge of prevarication, etc.

 

Once again, you did the unholy thinking for me when you surmised,

 

 

I think what you mean to say is that, if the sAttvik purAna says something you do not like, then it is interpolation. But if a tAmAsic purAna says something you like, then it is pramAna.

 

 

 

This is one of the typical Vaishnava tactics of putting words in the mouth of their adversaries. There is no issue of what you like and what I dislike. My purpose, as I have reiterated ad nauseam is to demolish/dismantle the Vaishnava belief system.

 

<font color="red">It is, in fact, the work of the Hare people and the Vaishnava at large to quote those passages which are favourable to their preaching and teachings and pooh-pooh those that are at variance with their belief system. For instance, the same Vaishnava who condemn the Shiva-category puranas as Tamasic are the self-same Vaishnava unashamedly accept portions of Skanda Purana when they find things that serve their purpose. Similarly, Vaishnava who demean the Guru Gita (which is part of the Skanda purana) quote but one sloka, "....Ajnana Timirathus-ya....". Where would you find evidence of hypocrisy more than in the life of a Vaishnava (who dastardly hides behind pseudonym) who attributes his qualities to the others?</font color>

 

You said,

 

 

I will do better than that, since you have nowhere defined what constitutes an "authoritative translation" (most likely something is "authoritative" to you as long as you do not disagree with it...). Therefore, I will provide the original Sanskrit, from the shruti itself, stating that Vishnu is the supreme Deity

 

 

.emphasis added by this writer

 

You had very generously quoted some verses (purportedly from the Rig Veda), of course (although properly literate in Devanagiri) in transliteration only. What I am going to tell you will throw cold water on your exuberance: one, you are thoroughly ignorant that the <font color="red">Rig Veda is not free from interpolations and mutilations by fanatics; two, anything (even those which have not been marred by human intervention) can sound something else when quoted out of context.</font color>

 

If you insist that we should go by whatever that these opportunistic fanatics have given us as gospel truths, let me quote you a number of verses, purportedly from the Rig Veda,

 

"[sacrificer:] 'They are pressing out the impetuous, exhilarating Soma juices with the pressing-stone, for you, Indra. Drink them! They are cooking bulls for you; you will eat them, generous Indra, when they summon you with food.' "<font color="red">Rig Veda 10:28:3.</font color>

 

"[indra:] 'They have cooked for me fifteen bulls, and twenty, so that I may eat the fat as well. Both sides of my belly are full.'<font color="red">Rig Veda 10:86:14.</font color>

 

"[indra:] 'Because I was in desperate straits, I cooked the entrails of a dog, and I found no one among the gods to help me. I saw my woman dishonoured. Then the eagle brought the honey (soma) to me.'<font color="red"> Rig Veda 4:18:13.</font color>

 

"[indrani:] 'No woman has finer loins than I, or is better at making love. No woman thrusts against a man better than I, or raises and spreads her thighs more.'; <font color="red">Rig Veda 10:86:6.</font color>

 

Of course, by the above, I would not want the discussion on RigVeda to close. I would want to prove to you what Vishnu's constitutional position was, and how he ascended to the level of the so-called supremacy.

 

I would, at the same time, show proofs that there is evidence in the Sattic Puranas (which the Vaishnavas worship as the only texts that they should read as God's chosen elites) that Lord Shiva has been seen as Vishnu's equal.

 

If all things go well, I would want to show to some of fanatical Vaishnava here the history behind all the rivalry and antoganism between the Shaivites and Vaishnavites. This will help put all their texts in context.

 

I, sincerely, hope that the Webmaster or any others here will not ban me from this site. If you do, then, you are deviating from the tradition started by Sanatana Dharma, which is to engage in Vada to establish the Truth.

 

I hope Guest could come out in the open and take me on. I shall present him and his faithful votaries with a gallimaufry of evidence that would allow the curtain to come down on their sophistry.

[Guest guest]

 

In Bhagvat 8.7 21-35 Prajapati are praying to Lord Shiva as supreme Lord.

We know better,dont we, they must be deluded by the affect of the poison?

 

 

If the bhAgavata says that, then such statements must be rejected. Such a conclusion is opposed to the sruti.

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

Dear Guest (who is hiding dastardly behind an anonymity),

 

 

 

Dear Chitta (who hypocritically hides behind a nom de plume while accusing me of anonymity),

 

 

 

I welcome you to the world of real debate.

 

 

 

Oh, is this real debate? I was under the impression that "real" debate was when both parties made it a point to support their views with evidence. I don't see a lot of that in your case. But, ok, if this is what you consider "real..."

 

 

 

Evidently, you did not bother to read what I had said of the excerpt. The war and rivalry between the Vaishnavas and the Shaivites were so intense that both started tampering with the Puranas, interpolating, altering and corrupting the puranas by inserting new and foreign matters, information and texts which are foreign to the purpose of Vyasa.

 

 

 

 

Evidently, it is you who seem either incapable of reading English or too dense to follow from a simple request.

 

The point is that your "Vaishnava vs. Shaivism" war is a convenient fiction invented by you and a few scholars-turned-prophets. There is no objective evidence whatsoever to support your view that the purAna-s which you disagree with are interpolated.

 

I repeatedly asked you to provide evidence for your various views, to which you simply reply with the same statements, again without evidence, as if they are obvious facts.

 

 

 

The puranas of the 1st stratum (which covers the period extending to the reign of Janamejaya) were compiled by Romaharsanaat. Those of the 2nd stratum (which extends to the time of Asima Krishna) were compiled by Ugrasrava (the son of Romaharsanaat). Those of the 3rd stratum covered the period after Asima Krishna till the close of the 4th centurt AD.

 

 

 

 

Evidence, please.

 

 

 

The puranas were passed on in this fashion. There was no writing, so the compositions passed by word of mouth. In the process, therefore, the fanatical opportunists added their own compositions

 

 

 

Evidence, please.

 

 

 

Padma Purana is but one of those texts that have suffered at the hands of the rascals. If you were to examine the Venkateshwar Press edition (1880s) version of Padma Purana and Nag Publishers', you would see a world of difference.

 

 

 

 

Please cite the differences, please.

 

 

 

And it is, therefore, not surprising that your "...multiple different recensions of a purAna separated in both time and space", are no exceptions to the skullduggery.

 

 

 

Wow, you used a polysyllabic word. I'm impressed.

 

 

 

The Vaishnavas are fond of quoting the following interpolations which I have obtained from two different recensions that the Vaishnava so-called Uttama-Adikaris rely on:

 

 

 

 

You still have not proven that the quotes I provided are interpolations. Since you have not quoted the Sanskrit, I do not know if your quotes are real translations of anything in that purAana. But in either case, you have not even given reasonable evidence that these are interpolated.

 

Basically, your whole methodology seems to involve screaming "interpolation" when something you don't like is brought up as evidence, only to say it again over and over when someone requests proof.

 

 

 

May it be the puranas, Darsanas, or the Shrutis, the Vaishnavas, like all other opportunists, did not leave things to chance when mutilating the texts to suit their purposes. They inserted texts, deleted words, paraphrased passages, misrepresented symbols, and presented canards unashamedly. Because the Shrutis generally are not the favourite of the hoi polloi, they found the Puranas their vehicle for propagating insulting lies.

 

 

 

 

First of all, you have not shown that anyone has interpolated anything. I don't disagree with the idea that interpolations have occurred in some purAna-s; I merely disagree with your opinion that everything you dislike is ipso facto "interpolated."

 

Secondly, mAdhvas rely on shruti to prove all core aspects of vedAnta philosophy, including the supremacy of nArAyaNa. Perhaps you might have heard of viSNutattvavinirNaya? Or you might be interested in reading srImad Ananda tIrtha's commentary on vedAnta-sUtra or the principle upaniSads? A word of caution, however. Thinking is required before taking up texts like these.

 

This precludes screaming out "interpolation" simply because your stomach gets upset at reading something. That is also true even if you add some fanatical spittle to the word.

 

 

 

You asked me,

 

 

In reply to:

 

 

Apparently, you are responding with prewritten replies rather than actually reading what I wrote.

 

I specifically asked you to present the "evidence" used by your "scholars" to conclude that the portions of padma purAna which you hate are interpolated.

 

In response to this, all you have done is given a list of those "scholars." So, where is the evidence? *I* am not going to pore through their dusty and useless books to prove myself wrong. It was *your* claim that they had irrefutable evidence that the purAna-s declaring Hari's supremacy were interpolated. Where is it?

 

Learn to back up your own claims. You may have such blind faith that because someone has a PhD, that they are therefore your scholar-turned-prophet-turned-guru. However, I do not share your faith in their credentials.

 

 

 

Yes, yes, tactics and persecution and all that. But the point remains that whenever you see something supporting the Vaishnava of view, you call it "interpolation." Only when it supports Shaivite point of view, it is not so.

 

 

 

You can look up those very mantras in any printed edition of the Rig Veda, since I have provided exact verse numbers. Well, I'm assuming that is, that you know how to count.

 

By the way, it was *you* who claimed that Vishnu's supremacy was not stated in Rig Veda. Now that I have shown where it is in fact stated, why are you just ignoring those mantras?

 

 

 

Well, there is no way to post the original in devanAgari on an ASCII-based forum like this. If you can count, you can pick up any printed edition of the Rig Veda and look it up.

 

Anyway, while criticizing me for not posting in the original devanAgari, I can't help but notice that you have not quoted any pramAna-s in the original Sanskrit. So, one standard for you, and another for everyone else, right?

 

 

 

If you can prove beyond any doubt that the mantras describing Vishnu's supremacy are interpolated, I will mail you a check for $1,000. Care to indulge me?

 

 

 

Read the Sanskrit. There is no doubt that those mantras are saying that Vishnu is the Supreme God. No doubt at all. If you want to see the original context, feel free to consult any of the online translations, of which several are available on the internet.

 

Oh, but I forgot: you don't know Sanskrit. Well, it seems to me that if you don't know Sanskrit, then you really can't claim anything about the meaning of those mantras.

 

 

 

Ahh, so when I quote Rig Veda to prove Vishnu's supremacy, it is "INTERPOLATION," no reason provided, we just have to accept it on the strength of your word.

 

But when you quote an alleged translation of the Rig Veda, we must give that all careful and due attention.

 

Nice double standard, this.

 

 

 

Anyway, NOTHING in the above contradicts Vishnu's supremacy as quoted by me earlier.

 

Nor have you proven that Shiva is superior to Vishnu, as per your earlier claim. On the contrary, I quoted specific evidence establishing the opposite point of view, and true to form, you simply ignored it.

 

Either you ignore evidence, or you just say it is interpolation. Or else you just change the subject. Exactly what here are we supposed to think is so threatening to our point of view? You don't know Sanskrit. You can't read Sanskrit. Everything you know about Vedic history is primarily from books published by non-Hindu Indologists, some of whom were quite biased against Hinduism. And frankly, I'm beginning to doubt that you have read those books.

 

 

 

Since when has it been a tradition in sanAtana-dharma to turn off one's brain and refuse to think? Or to ignore all evidence contrary to one's position? Or to just scream "interpolation" whenever he is having a bad day?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[dhaa]

 

Shruti is the highest authority -- remember that

 

...

 

If the bhAgavata says that, then such statements must be rejected. Such a conclusion is opposed to the sruti

 

 

to my unlearned understanding, bhagavat can be considered as sruti

 

http://bhagavatam.net/1/4/7

 

katham va pandaveyasya

rajarser munina saha

samvadah samabhut tata

yatraisa satvati srutih

 

"How did it so happen that King Pariksit met this great sage, making it possible for this great transcendental essence of the Vedas [bhagavatam] to be sung to him?"

 

 

http://bhagavatam.net/12/4/42

 

sa vai mahyam maha-raja

bhagavan badarayanah

imam bhagavatim pritah

samhitam veda-sammitam

 

"My dear Maharaja Pariksit, that great personality Srila Vyasadeva taught me this same scripture, Srimad-Bhagavatam, which is equal in stature to the four Vedas"

 

and i vaguely recall reading somewhere (forgot where) that bhagavat is the most authoritative of all sastra, or something to that effect. is something like that said in a sastra?

[Guest guest]

 

9. Swami Prakashanand Saraswati: "The True History & the Religion of India"

 

 

 

Actually I have this book, and it seems to make a point counter to what Mr. Citta is forwarding. The main point (in one of its sections) is that all this notion that the veda was created by aryans from north west asia in 1200 BC etc. was a systemetic ploy by the imperial British to demolish the strong hindu society.

 

http://encyclopediaofauthentichinduism.org

 

The following are also interesting:

 

http://www.gosai.com/chaitanya/saranagati/html/vedic-upanisads/india-indology.html

http://www.gosai.com/chaitanya/saranagati/html/vedic-upanisads/aryan-invasion.html

[gokulkr]

Dear devotee (???)

 

Your words clearly prove that you are just a "shaivatee" hiding your face wering a mask of "secularist" (saying "shiva & vishnu are equal").

 

u are telling all verses relating to supremacy of lord vishnu are interpolted.

 

but u are not talking anything verses "relating to supremacy of lord shiva are interpolated".

 

thats the world.

 

if anyone accepts lord krishna as supreme, then he is blamed as person brainwashed / person interpolating the verses suiting to him. hmmm

 

if someone accepts lord shiva as supreme , then he is considered as intelligent person & he is not blamed as "interpolating the verses suiting to him".

 

i am not saying to blame the saivatees. i am telling not to blame the vaishnvatees.

 

similarly, if someone accepts "advaitham", then he is regaraded as "enlightened person".

 

but if a scholar supports "dvaitham/visitadvaitham" then he is regarded as consistent & is holding the views of his philosophy so that their guru's glory shine.

 

if a person supports advaitham, they are not blamed as consistent trying to make their guru's glory shine.

 

reason is in advaitham "god is regarded as formless & vishnu is regarded as lower brahman".

 

in otheres "god is regarded as form & vishnu is regarded as supreme".

 

so many people like u dont have heart to accept philosophies supporting vishnu & reject them as "fanatics".

 

but u tell "advaitham" as secular.

 

so if u dont want to worship lord vishnu is supreme. dont worship.

 

u can goto a shiva temple / a mosque & pray so that u become a secular person.

 

we agree that lord vishnu doesnt need any supreme status. all the verses relating to "vishnus supreme" are just interpolations made by fanatics.

 

we agree that watever quoted relating to lord shiva alone are true & considered so that we all be "enlightened" (????).

 

We also agree shiva purana, because it states vulgarily that goddess lakshmi submits her bossom to shiva so that he will be pleased. people get enlightened by seeing such "vulgar" statements & consider "shiva purana" as secular & supreme.

 

since in bhagavatham & padma purana no such vulgar statements occur it is not considered as supreme & it is regarded as interpolated by fanatics.

 

how true ???

 

now stop barking and go to a siva temple / mosque to pray since we have accepted lord vishnu is inferior & lord shiva is supreme & shiva enjoys bossom of goddess laxmi.

 

okeeee

 

 

Khuda Affiss.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Lets come to "Adi Shankara".

 

Adi shankara declared in his advaitam that god has no form & vishnu is lower brahman. its come closer to shaivam. so we accept it.

 

hmmm

 

But lord narshima entered his disciples body to save "Adi shankara" from a kapalika. heyyy lord narshima has a form.

but in advaitham it is told god has no form. wait.. this means lord narshima is not god, because hes already killed by lord shiva as stated in "Shiva purana". hmmm how enlightening ???

 

Lord Adi shankara & his disciple pralamaba were devotees of lord narashima. hey lord narashima is dead , as he was killed by lord shiva as stated in "shiva purana". so adi shankara is worshipping a dead god. hes flipped his lid. how enlightening ????

 

Lord Adi shankara told to worship "Govinda" in his bhaja govindam. hey wait.. govinda is not even treated as a demigod in "shiva purana". this proves that Lord Adi shankars has flipped his lid by singing "Bhaja Govindam". how enlightening ????

 

Lord Adi shankara tells in his gita commentary that Lord Krishna is supreme. wait... lord krishna is just a devotee of shiva and radharani submits her bossom to lord shiva & lord shiva accepts it s stated in shiva purana. how enlightening ??? so lord krishna is not supreme. hmmm this proves Lord Adi shankara has flipped his lid while writing "Gita commentary". how enlightening ???

 

Even though adi shankara has flipped his lid many times, but we still want to cling on "advaitham" since it comes closer to shaivam. geee. how enlightening ????

 

Also many advaitha scholars walked on path of virtue by trying to kill "Lord Ramanuja & other vaishnava scholars" so that they can walk on path of virtue. how enlightening ???

 

so based on above enlightening facts, it is concluded that shaivam is true & vaishnvam is false.

 

wait.. in advaitham it is told that "god has no form". okee then we can go to "mosque" and pray. how enlightening ????

 

Khudaa affiss

 

 

 

 

[gokulkr]

Lord Ramanuja proved saivam false.

Lord Madhvacharya proved saivam false.

...

Lord Vallabhacharya proved saivam false.

 

hmmm by seeing that above proved historical facts that all the above lords proved saivam false. that means they are fanatics & have misinterpreted vedas & scriptures so that it may suit them and proved hunderds of times that shaivam is false. so they re fanatics. how enlightening.

 

Lets come to disciples of the above lords.

All the disciples of the above lords proved saivam false & we also see from historical incidents that even "god (vishnu) gave darshan to them" & blesses them to vistorious in debate with shaivatees. this proves all the disciples are fanatics & "lord vishnu" is a false god. And lord shiva didnt came to bless the advaita disciples. hmmm this proves that lord shiva is sooo pleased by his followers. how enlightening ?????

 

moreover all the disciples were fanatics just consistent to uplift the gurus glory & proved saivam false. also lord vishnu blessed them (so that they be fanatics ????) . hmmm this also proves that only shaivam is true.

 

also advaita scholars are not consistent & they wre walking path of virtue just because they want to kill lord ramajuja & other scholrs so they can follow path of virue . very enlightening ?????

 

but lords didnt want to destroy / kill advaitans. moreover they blessed them. this proves that they are consistent & evil. hmmm so their teachings should be rejected. yes its a enlightening fact

 

so who ever follows the lords are consistent fanatics & evil. and their views should not accepted.

 

whereas people who follow enlightened (???) advaita scholars walk in path of virtue because they accuse lord ramanuja & other lords. hmmm how enlightening ????

 

wow reclining to above facts, it is proved that advaitham & shaivam are religion of virtue and vaishnavam - a religion of evil.

 

i think you will be enlightened by hearing the above facts.

 

Khudaa aaffiss

 

 

[Chitta]

You might want to read what I have told you on 02/08/04 at 10:15 AM. Having dealt with that, you may proceed with the rest. Otherwise, do not expose your ignorance too much.

[Chitta]

I do not know which 'Guest' you are although your ideas sound as gassy as the other I dealt with on 8th Feb. Anyhow, read my posting on <font color="red}8thFeb2004at04:07PM[/color">. It has the answer to your present posting.

[gokulkr]

Shaivatees sung praises of Shiva before a pillar. pillar didnt budged.Lord Perialwar sung praises of "lord vishnu" & pillar bowed down.

 

yawn... it sounds comical to me . hehehe because its against shaivam, as here vishnu is proved supreme. but i always wanna cling to "shiva purana" and wil not belive the above incident. this incident is false as it is opposite to shaivam. moreover i will find it as only comical only. how enlightening ???

 

Lord Vallabhacharya before a heap of shaivatee scholars , placed a black papmlet with ink before deity of lord krishna & closed the deity & saivatees guareded the deity. after few hours, opening it, shaivatees were astounished to see words writen on pamplet telling "Lord krishna is supreme. Only we should follow gita".

 

Yawn... again this incident sound comical to me. hehehe since its against shaivam. i wanna always cling to "shiva purana" & yelling its "enlightening" (???) stories. since the above incident proves vishnu as supreme, i will not accept as real. how enlightening ???

 

Lord Vijayendra thirtha proves "Shaiva purana" as tamasic by quoting "veda vyasas words".

 

hey... i will not accept it. im sure that vijaeyndra thirtha has misintrepreted vyasas words & lying to all that shiva purana is tamasic. i will not accept it, as i always wanna cling to enlightening (???) shiva purana. Suppose if vijayendra thirtha told bhagavatham as tamasic, i would have accepted it & will be yelling throughout my life that "bhagavatham" is tamasic. how enlightening ????

 

Lord Raghavendra tells "Vishnu as Supreme" & asks everyone to follow "Madhvacharyas teachings".

 

Yawn... who cares about his teachings ? since Lord Raghavendra is telling vishnu as supreme which is against "shiva purana". moreover, he wanna be consistent & want to make teachings of his guru madhvacharya glorious. so i will not take his teachings. hes just a fanatic misintrepreting all the scriptures so that it may suit him.

people who follow his teachings & support him are to regarded his "fan" only. views of such people shoud not be ever respected as i wanna always cling to "shiva purana" & follow its enlightening (????) stories. hahaha

 

Lord Raghavendra once told in a court of a muslim emperor that both "shiva & vishnu" are same.

 

hurrayy... everyone listen to what raghavendra said. everyone worship lord shiva. what about lord vishnu ? hey its against "shiva purana" to accept "vishnu to be equal to shiva" so dont worship lord vishnu. hey its against raghavendras quote. who cares ? he told a word about "Lord shiva" so i wanna cling only to the word only, i dont care to worship lord vishnu. hahaha

 

What about techings of Lord Raghavendra ?

 

who cares about his teachings ? i just wanna cling to the fact that he worshipped "Shiva". In his teachings carry dwaita philosphy, so he flipped his lid. But while worshipping shiva he has not flipped his lid. hahaha.

how enlightening ???

 

Lord Ramanuja said ...

 

hey why are u bringing ramanuja here ? you were talking only about raghavendra. so dont bring him. hehehe. (pssstt if you had brought Adi-shankara to the scene, i will not tell anything) hahaha

 

ok Lord Adishankara sang "Bhaja Govindam".

 

hey.. i have already told to u that Lord Adi shankara had flipped his lid while singing bhaja govindam. so we will not consider it. But while teaching "Advaitham" he hasnt flipped his lid. gee.. since we think "advaitham" is closer to shaivam. hahaha (how enlightening ???)

 

Wait.. in advaitham it is said "God has no form". ok we will go to mosque & pray. hahaha

 

Khudaa AAfisss

 

 

 

 

[gokulkr]

Vishnu is supreme. Because Lord Ramanuja told that.

 

hahahaha... its so comical to hear. why dont u give some proper verse (pssttt since you are always speak vaishnavam , i will tell you ignorant only.) but if u tell "shiva is supreme" i will accept u & never tell you as comical / ignorant. Be we shaviatees are enlightened & you vaishnavas are comical/ignorant. hahaha

 

i have given many proofs about Vishnu

 

heyy. you should travel in a time machine and pick up exact verses writen by "Vyasa" since i dont believe whatever the saints had said about "Vyasa's quotes" since it doesnt have historical evidence.

 

i have already quoted proofs extracting from www.dvaita.net showing vyasas quotes.

 

heyyy. i have ignored your proofs since it comes under vaishnavam. (hee i just wear mask of secular, as i am really a shaviatee) so even if u give infinite proofs i will ignore it & tell you as comical / ignorant. you are exposing ur ignorance. dont expose ur ignorance ok. but i am not ignorant as i know everything as lord shiva came yeaterday & told me that he is supreme.

 

so even if i quote whatever u will ignore it as comical/fanatic or as ignorant.

 

yup thats exactly what i have in mind. i always wanna cling to "shiva purana" wearing mask of secular.

 

then how to make u prove that "Vishnu is supreme" or "Shiva purana" as tamasic ?

 

go to a time machine & bring veda vyasa back. otherwise i will not believe wahtever u quote. hahaha

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Chitta]

<font color="red">Your method of dodging issues and direct debate is not new on the net.</font color> It has been tried long enough for it to have become tiringly trite. Beneath the veneer of your long irrelevant postings, I could espy an insecure Vaishnava seething piteously.

 

You might just want to answer my posting for you on <font color="red">8th Feb.</font color> That will help you. Pelting innuendoes, ducking cowardly behind irrelevancy compels one to ignore you.