Demi gods

[hare_krishna]

Why only agree with bhagavad gita? Agree with whole mahabharata.

[Raguraman]

Hare Krishna,

 

 

Why only agree with bhagavad gita? Agree with whole mahabharata.

 

 

Has to agree with the conclusion of Vedas. You answer to the quotes from Vedas first.

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna,

 

Vishvakarma Sukta(10:82)

 

5 That which is earlier than this earth and heaven, before the Asuras and Gods had being,-

What was the germ primeval which the waters received where all the Gods were seen together?

6 The waters, they received that germ primeval wherein the Gods were gathefed all together.

It rested set upon the Unborn's navel, that One wherein abide all things existing.

 

Unborn's navel: The unmistakable mark or refrence to VISNU.

Verse 3 of same Sukta: What does it say ?

yo devAnAM nAmadhA eka eva taM samprashnambhuvanA yantyanyA

Even he alone, the Deities' narne-giver,him other beings seek for information.

Can be better translated as "One who bears the name of all other Deities".

So it is Lord Visnu who is Sarvottama.

[Raguraman]

Hare Krishna,

 

Rig Veda: 10:125

 

Verse 5:

 

yaM kAmaye taM--tamugraM kRNomi tambrahmANaM taM RSiM taM sumedhAm

I make whoever I like Ugra(Rudra), Brahma, Rsi or a wise man.

Verse 7:

 

ahaM suve pitaramasya mUrdhan mama yonirapsvantaH samudre

 

She says that the source of her might is the being from the ocean.

 

Again Rudra, Brahma etc. are found here to be lower in Taratamya to this Goddess and she says that her home is in the ocean. This is again the unmistakable reference to Goddess Laksmi. She is subservient to Lord Visnu.

[krishna_s]

 

though vaishnavas and saivites will not accept it, the same supreme lord is addressed by different names such as krishna, siva, karthikeya etc. the vedanta sutras do say that brahman is addressed by different names such as krishna, siva etc.

 

the lord says i am siva, i am karthikeya, i am vasudeva etc., directly in the 10th chapter of bg.

 

 

That doesn't make any sense. What Krishna says is "among Rudras I am Shiva, among mountains I am Meru, among commanders I am Karthikeya." If Advaita was true, then Krishna would be all the Rudras, all the mountains, all military commanders, etc. Why only Shiva, Meru, Karthikeya, etc?

 

You need to stop taking statements out of context. This chapter of BG is simply illustrating Lord Krishna's representation among various things. It isn't a statement of the oneness of all deities. The latter is a direct contradiction to shruti which clearly states that among all devatas Vishnu is highest:

 

agnirvai devaanamavamo viShNuH paramaH (Aitareya BraahmaNa, I.1.1)

[krishna_s]

 

It is said in Kurma puraana that one who sees Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva as different will go to bloody hell. So please be careful, you are warned now.

 

 

Actually, I definitely recall seeing such a statement in the Varaaha Puraana, critical edition published by All-India Kashiraj Trust. Currently, my books are packed up so I can't find it, but if you remind me again in about 3 weeks I will be happy to dig it up for you.

 

The thing is, while it did say something about there being no differences between Vishnu, Shiva, Brahmaa, the very SAME chapter also said that Vishnu was the Supreme among all. In fact, it was stated by Lord Shiva when asked by a muni as to who among them was supreme.

 

So, the statement about there being no differences between the three, when read in this light, can only be sensibly interpreted to mean that there is no conflict between the three - that is, one who becomes a devotee of Vishnu does not antagonize Shiva or Brahmaa as a result, since all are agreed about Vishnu's supremacy.

 

Again, I would be happy to dig up the original Sanskrit in a few weeks when I get my books back, assuming anyone is interested.

 

- K

 

 

[Guest guest]

okay let us take that my statements are out of context and nonsensical. let us see how you would explain this.

 

in the verse, 10.17 arjuna asks the supreme lord how should i medidate on you, oh supreme lord ? in response, the lord says he can be medidated upon as the sun, moon, siva, vishnu, krishna, wisdom etc. finaly he says that every thing including krishna is only a fraction of his potency.

 

later i will explain why the notion of monotheism and hierarchy of gods is not strange to advaitam.

[theist]

BG 10.1: The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: Listen again, O mighty-armed Arjuna. Because you are My dear friend, for your benefit I shall speak to you further, giving knowledge that is better than what I have already explained.

 

BG 10.2: Neither the hosts of demigods nor the great sages know My origin or opulences, for, in every respect, I am the source of the demigods and sages.

 

BG 10.3: He who knows Me as the unborn, as the beginningless, as the Supreme Lord of all the worlds — he only, undeluded among men, is freed from all sins.

 

BG 10.4-5: Intelligence, knowledge, freedom from doubt and delusion, forgiveness, truthfulness, control of the senses, control of the mind, happiness and distress, birth, death, fear, fearlessness, nonviolence, equanimity, satisfaction, austerity, charity, fame and infamy — all these various qualities of living beings are created by Me alone.

 

BG 10.6: The seven great sages and before them the four other great sages and the Manus [progenitors of mankind] come from Me, born from My mind, and all the living beings populating the various planets descend from them.

 

BG 10.7: One who is factually convinced of this opulence and mystic power of Mine engages in unalloyed devotional service; of this there is no doubt.

 

BG 10.8: I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates from Me. The wise who perfectly know this engage in My devotional service and worship Me with all their hearts.

 

BG 10.9: The thoughts of My pure devotees dwell in Me, their lives are fully devoted to My service, and they derive great satisfaction and bliss from always enlightening one another and conversing about Me.

 

BG 10.10: To those who are constantly devoted to serving Me with love, I give the understanding by which they can come to Me.

 

BG 10.11: To show them special mercy, I, dwelling in their hearts, destroy with the shining lamp of knowledge the darkness born of ignorance.

 

BG 10.12-13: Arjuna said: You are the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the ultimate abode, the purest, the Absolute Truth. You are the eternal, transcendental, original person, the unborn, the greatest. All the great sages such as Narada, Asita, Devala and Vyasa confirm this truth about You, and now You Yourself are declaring it to me.

 

BG 10.14: O Krsna, I totally accept as truth all that You have told me. Neither the demigods nor the demons, O Lord, can understand Your personality.

 

BG 10.15: Indeed, You alone know Yourself by Your own internal potency, O Supreme Person, origin of all, Lord of all beings, God of gods, Lord of the universe!

 

BG 10.16: Please tell me in detail of Your divine opulences by which You pervade all these worlds.

 

BG 10.17: O Krsna, O supreme mystic, how shall I constantly think of You, and how shall I know You? In what various forms are You to be remembered, O Supreme Personality of Godhead?

 

BG 10.18: O Janardana, again please describe in detail the mystic power of Your opulences. I am never satiated in hearing about You, for the more I hear the more I want to taste the nectar of Your words.

 

BG 10.19: The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: Yes, I will tell you of My splendorous manifestations, but only of those which are prominent, O Arjuna, for My opulence is limitless.

 

BG 10.20: I am the Supersoul, O Arjuna, seated in the hearts of all living entities. I am the beginning, the middle and the end of all beings.

 

BG 10.21: Of the Adityas I am Visnu, of lights I am the radiant sun, of the Maruts I am Marici, and among the stars I am the moon.

 

BG 10.22: Of the Vedas I am the Sama Veda; of the demigods I am Indra, the king of heaven; of the senses I am the mind; and in living beings I am the living force [consciousness].

 

BG 10.23: Of all the Rudras I am Lord Śiva, of the Yaksas and Raksasas I am the Lord of wealth [Kuvera], of the Vasus I am fire [Agni], and of mountains I am Meru.

 

BG 10.24: Of priests, O Arjuna, know Me to be the chief, Brihaspati. Of generals I am Kartikeya, and of bodies of water I am the ocean.

 

BG 10.25: Of the great sages I am Bhrigu; of vibrations I am the transcendental om. Of sacrifices I am the chanting of the holy names [japa], and of immovable things I am the Himalayas.

 

BG 10.26: Of all trees I am the banyan tree, and of the sages among the demigods I am Narada. Of the Gandharvas I am Citraratha, and among perfected beings I am the sage Kapila.

 

BG 10.27: Of horses know Me to be Uccaihshrava, produced during the churning of the ocean for nectar. Of lordly elephants I am Airavata, and among men I am the monarch.

 

BG 10.28: Of weapons I am the thunderbolt; among cows I am the surabhi. Of causes for procreation I am Kandarpa, the god of love, and of serpents I am Vasuki.

 

BG 10.29: Of the many-hooded Nagas I am Ananta, and among the aquatics I am the demigod Varuna. Of departed ancestors I am Aryama, and among the dispensers of law I am Yama, the lord of death.

 

BG 10.30: Among the Daitya demons I am the devoted Prahlāda, among subduers I am time, among beasts I am the lion, and among birds I am Garuda.

 

BG 10.31: Of purifiers I am the wind, of the wielders of weapons I am Rama, of fishes I am the shark, and of flowing rivers I am the Ganges.

 

BG 10.32: Of all creations I am the beginning and the end and also the middle, O Arjuna. Of all sciences I am the spiritual science of the self, and among logicians I am the conclusive truth.

 

BG 10.33: Of letters I am the letter A, and among compound words I am the dual compound. I am also inexhaustible time, and of creators I am Brahma.

 

BG 10.34: I am all-devouring death, and I am the generating principle of all that is yet to be. Among women I am fame, fortune, fine speech, memory, intelligence, steadfastness and patience.

 

BG 10.35: Of the hymns in the Sama Veda I am the Brihat-sama, and of poetry I am the Gayatri. Of months I am Margasirsa [November-December], and of seasons I am flower-bearing spring.

 

BG 10.36: I am also the gambling of cheats, and of the splendid I am the splendor. I am victory, I am adventure, and I am the strength of the strong.

 

BG 10.37: Of the descendants of Vrsni I am Vasudeva, and of the Pāṇḍavas I am Arjuna. Of the sages I am Vyasa, and among great thinkers I am Usana.

 

BG 10.38: Among all means of suppressing lawlessness I am punishment, and of those who seek victory I am morality. Of secret things I am silence, and of the wise I am the wisdom.

 

BG 10.39: Furthermore, O Arjuna, I am the generating seed of all existences. There is no being — moving or nonmoving — that can exist without Me.

 

BG 10.40: O mighty conqueror of enemies, there is no end to My divine manifestations. What I have spoken to you is but a mere indication of My infinite opulences.

 

BG 10.41: Know that all opulent, beautiful and glorious creations spring from but a spark of My splendor.

 

BG 10.42: But what need is there, Arjuna, for all this detailed knowledge? With a single fragment of Myself I pervade and support this entire universe.

 

 

 

Copyright © His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, Founder Ācārya of the International Society for Krsna Consciousness

[hare_krishna]

Other gitas says a lot of other things also. In dewi gita Durga is the supreme godess.

[Pritesh01]

In Bhagavad-gétä (9.23) the Lord Himself confirms this in the following çloka:

ye ’py anya-devatä-bhaktä

yajante çraddhayänvitäù

te ’pi mäm eva kaunteya

yajanty avidhi-pürvakam

“Whatever a man may sacrifice to other gods, O son of Kunté, is really meant for Me alone, but it is offered without true understanding.”

The fact is that the Supreme Lord is one without a second. There is no God other than the Lord Himself. Thus the Supreme Lord is eternally transcendental to the material creation. But there are many who worship the demigods like the sun, the moon and Indra, who are only material representatives of the Supreme Lord. These demigods are indirect, qualitative representations of the Supreme Lord. A learned scholar or devotee, however, knows who is who. Therefore he directly worships the Supreme Lord and is not diverted by the material, qualitative representations. Those who are not so learned worship such qualitative, material representations, but their worship is unceremonious because it is irregular.

 

[krishna_s]

 

okay let us take that my statements are out of context and nonsensical. let us see how you would explain this.

 

 

 

There is no doubt that your statements are taken out of context.

 

At the very beginning of the chapter, the Lord says:

 

na me viduH sura-gaNAH prabhavaM na maharSayaH |

aham Adir hi devAnAM maharSINAM ca sarvazaH || gitaa 10.2 ||

 

Neither the hosts of demigods nor the great sages know My origin or opulences, for, in every respect, I am the source of the demigods and sages. (bhagavad-giitaa 10.2)

 

Arjuna, having understood the revelation of Krishna's position, goes on to say:

 

sarvam etad RtaM manye yan mAM vadasi kezava |

na hi te bhagavan vyaktiM vidur devA na dAnavAH || gitaa 10.14 ||

 

O KRSNa, I totally accept as truth all that You have told me. Neither the demigods nor the demons, O Lord, can understand Your personality. (bhagavad-giitaa 10.14)

 

This isn't the only time we are told that the demigods do not understand Krishna - you can't equate two things when one is above the understanding of the other.

 

Then we have another, explicit statement describing Krishna as the God of gods:

 

svayam evAtmanAtmAnaM vettha tvaM puruSottama |

bhUta-bhAvana bhUteza deva-deva jagat-pate || giitaa 10.15 ||

 

Indeed, You alone know Yourself by Your own internal potency, O Supreme Person, origin of all, Lord of all beings, God of gods, Lord of the universe! (bhagavad-giitaa 10.15)

 

The Giitaa says Krishna is the God of gods, the origin of the other demigods, and above the understanding of other demigods. Hence, He is supreme among them. How much more explicit does it need to be? And all this is stated in the first few verses of chapter 10, what to speak of other chapters.

 

 

in the verse, 10.17 arjuna asks the supreme lord how should i medidate on you, oh supreme lord ?

 

 

 

Except that you ignored verse 10.16:

 

vaktum arhasy azeSeNa divyA hy Atma-vibhUtayaH |

yAbhir vibhUtibhir lokAn imAMs tvaM vyApya tiSThasi || giitaa 10.16 ||

 

Please tell me in detail of Your divine opulences by which You pervade all these worlds. (bhagavad-giitaa 10.16)

 

Thus, Krishna is telling Arjuna of His various vibhuutis - this is His response to Arjuna's question here. The question, "how should I constantly think of you" must be qualified by this statement: Arjuna is asking one question in two different ways. Ignoring verse 10.16 is what led you to the misunderstanding you show here. Indeed, Arjuna makes it clear again two verses later:

 

vistareNAtmano yogaM vibhUtiM ca janArdana |

bhUyaH kathaya tRptir hi zRNvato nAsti me 'mRtam || giitaa 10.18 ||

 

O JanArdana, again please describe in detail the mystic power of Your opulences. I am never satiated in hearing about You, for the more I hear the more I want to taste the nectar of Your words (bhagavad-giitaa 10.18).

 

To which Krishna responds:

 

zrI-bhagavAn uvAca

hanta te kathayiSyAmi divyA hy Atma-vibhUtayaH |

prAdhAnyataH kuru-zreSTha nAsty anto vistarasya me || giitaa 10.19 ||

 

The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: Yes, I will tell you of My splendorous manifestations, but only of those which are prominent, O Arjuna, for My opulence is limitless. (bhagavad-giitaa 10.19)

 

After clearly stating the supremacy of Krishna over the demigods, the question (three times stated) is in regards to Krishna's opulences (vibhuutis) or manifestations by which he pervades these worlds: yAbhir vibhUtibhir lokAn

imAMs tvaM vyApya tiSThasi. This is not necessarily a question as to what other forms are equal to Lord - it is a question as to what things represent the Lord in these material worlds. The various representations includes some of Vishnu's own avataaras, various demigods in elevated positions, moutain, rivers, wisdom, etc.

 

 

in response, the lord says he can be medidated upon as the sun, moon, siva, vishnu, krishna, wisdom etc.

 

 

And I have already pointed out, (to which I have not yet received an answer), that this is not Advaita-siddhaanta. Why only Vishnu among the Adityas? Why only Raama among bowmen? Why only Shiva among the Maruts? Why only the moon among the stars? If Advaita be true, than Krishna should be all the Adityas, all the bowmen, all the Marus, all the stars, etc. Conveniently ignoring this, some Advaitists insist that these statements lead us to believe that Shiva, Indra, etc are on same level as Vishnu. It simply isn't true, unless you ignore the first 15 verses of the chapter, then ignore the content of Arjuna's question in 10.16-10.19 which explicitly specifies the vibhuutis which pervade this material worlds.

 

Example: Krishna says in verse 10.37 that He is Arjuna among the Paandavas. If, as you speculate, this literally means Arjuna and Krishna are the same, then why is Arjuna bewildered? If Arjuna is bewildered and Krishna is not, then Krishna's speaking of Bhagavad-giitaa has no value, since spiritual instruction can only be accepted from someone is situated in Brahman. We don't worship Arjuna in place of Krishna, why not?

 

Nor do we worship Brahmaa, even though Krishna is Brahmaa among creators. Nor do we worship fine speech, intelligence, memory, etc in women. Nor do we worship the gambling among cheats? Why not Ram? All these things are avataaras of Krishna right?

 

In verse 10.23, Krishna states that He is Agni among Vasus. If this literally means that Agni and Krishna are the same, then why the Aitareya Braahmana 1.1.1 says that Agni is lowest among devatas and Vishnu is Highest? Your interpretations do not sufficiently take context into account; nor are they harmonious with shruti.

 

 

finaly he says that every thing including krishna is only a fraction of his potency.

 

 

 

No, that is your interpretation. The fact that Vaasudeva is in that list does not mean He is less than Krishna. It doesn't even make sense: Krishna is a fraction of His own opulence.

 

Krishna is svayam bhagavaan as indicated in Bhaagavatam 1.3.28. There is no truth superior to Him:

 

mattaH parataraM nAnyat kiJcid asti dhanaJjaya |

mayi sarvam idaM protaM sUtre maNi-gaNA iva || giitaa 7.7 ||

 

O conqueror of wealth, there is no truth superior to Me. Everything rests upon Me, as pearls are strung on a thread. (bhagavad-giitaa 7.7)

 

That Krishna is on that list of vibhuutiis, therefore, should not indicate that He is something less than Himself. When Krishna refers to all of these vibhuutiis as being merely an indication of His opulence, it is understood that He is describing a group of things, most of which are less than Him, but in which He himself is present in full in a few cases (Vishnu, Vaasudeva, Raama, etc). Context is important here; don't interpret blindly. It's like saying "those people under the umbrella" - obviously one of them is holding the umbrella, providing shelter to the others, but nevertheless it is convenient for the sake of speech to speak of them all as being under the umbrella.

 

 

later i will explain why the notion of monotheism and hierarchy of gods is not strange to advaitam.

 

 

 

So on one hand, it is wrong to say that the demigods are less than Krishna. But on the other hand, there is still a hierarchy among them? With all due respect, that sounds like classic, pseudo-scholarly double talk.

 

yours,

 

- K

[Guest guest]

Theist Prabhu, thanks for posting the summary. Krishna_s, thanks for the knowledgeable and devotional refutal. However, I disagree with your comments that are removed from truth taught by great acharyas such as Sankara.

 

Consider the following statements made by a person :

 

I am the president of my state.

In the ruling party, I am the chief.

For the family, know me to be the head.

I just spend a part of my time to run the state, my family and my party.

 

The head of the state is more powerful to head of a party and of all, the head of the family is the least powerful.

 

It is a simple example to show that the same person can be the head of a state and be in a subordinate position as the head of a family or a party. If a person plays many such roles, then these roles will be a fraction of his total potency.

 

This is the same sense in which the Supreme Lord talks about the different roles played by Him. The supreme lord is vishnu and agni but then there is also hierarchy between them. Being Vishnu, Agni etc., is but a small fraction of the Supreme Lord's role. This Supreme Lord is the para brahman who is called by different names such as Siva, Krishna, Rama etc. He is the god of the gods and not even the gods what to speak of sages are able to fully understand Him. He is the basis for all including the different gods.

 

This is a simplified version of Sankara bhashya. Now compare this with the complicated interpretation that when the lord says i am the vishnu, he refers to himself. But when he says i am siva, he refers to some one else. We need basis to say these from within the scripture itself.

 

There is a question about why the Lord is not other maruts. Now the lord himself says that he is only listing some of his glories. how is it correct to ask why he is not listing all the aspects ?

 

let me ask you a pointed question about demigod worship ? arjuna asks how to medidate upon him and the lord says meditate upon me as krishna, siva, vishnu, agni etc. why do you think that you should not meditate on siva ?

[krishna_s]

I will say again, as quoted earlier, that Krishna is asked to describe His various manifestations by which He pervades the material world - not necessarily various avataaras by which He can be worshipped in lieu of Himself.

 

Your analogy about the head of the family, head of the country, etc, is thus not applicable. A more appropriate analogy would be the President of the United States saying that his power is best represented by aircraft carriers in the navy, by the Secret Service among intelligence agencies, by the Vice-President among Congress, etc. It is not that he is literally these things; rather, they are direct representations of his power.

 

I asked you a series of questions which you never bothered to answer, so I will ask them again. If the 10th chapter was indicating to us various forms of Vishnu that are equal to Him for the purposes of worship, then why not worship Arjuna (even though he is the one who is bewildered)? Why not worship the gambling of cheats? Why not worship fine speech among women? Why not worship mount Meru?

 

How can Arjuna be Krishna when Arjuna is the one who is bewildered? How can gambling be a worshipable form of Krishna for a transcendentalist who is above the pleasures and pains of this material world?

 

You cannot answer these questions sensibly with the theory of interpretation which you propose. The lesson here is that one should not give some interpretation when the logical extension of said interpreation leads to untenable conclusions.

 

Yes, Krishna does indicate that one can think of Him in these ways, as Arjuna among Paandavas, Shiva among Rudras, etc. This is because He was asked to speak of His manifestations by which HE PERVADES THESE MATERIAL WORLDS: yAbhir vibhUtibhir lokAn imAMs tvaM vyApya tiSThasi (BG 10.16). The idea is that one who cannot directly see Krishna can at least begin appreciate Him by looking at His more visible manifestations in the material worlds. Krishna expands Himself into the material universe as Kshiirodaakashayi Vishnu among Adityas, and hence Vishnu is included in this list. He takes avataara as Raama, the greatest kshatriya, and as Krishna, so These are mentioned in the list. Furthermore, among the Rudras, Lord Shiva is the most powerful and gets his potency from Krishna only (see Rig Veda 7.40.5), so Shiva is in this list. Meru is the greatest among mountains and Bhrigu is the greatest of sages, etc. Fine speech, intelligence, good memory etc are desireable qualities in women and so these are on the list. Etcetera, etcetera.

 

Your theory that Krishna becomes the demigods like Agni and serves Himself as if He were a subserviant devotee, is refuted by the statement in BG 10.2 in which the Lord states that these demigods do not understand Him. If the demigods were really Krishna, then there would be no question of them not knowing Him. How can the Lord not know Himself? Even if He were playing the role of a devotee, He would still have full knowledge of Himself, though He might not behave in that fashion. If that knowledge were to become covered somehow by maayaa, then the Lord would be subordinate to maayaa, which is also unacceptable.

 

Furthermore, as most of the entities listed in Chapter 10 are not full expansions of Himself, but rather manifestations of His vibhuuti among various categories, Lord says that all this is but an infinitesmal spark of His splendour. If each of the entities listed in Chapter 10 was fully Himself, then why does He say that they are a spark of His full potency? The second lesson here is not to pull isolated statements out of context and extrapolate some meaning from them which is not consistent with the rest of context. In the end, Krishna shows His universal form, which is superior even to the demigods, but beyond this there is His form as Vishnu and then as Krishna. There is no scope for imagining that the demigods are all the same as Krishna.

 

I don't doubt that you will be unconvinced by this explanation, and that you will continue to respond without considering the entire context and without answering the relevant questions posed to you. You might even feel that my lack of interest in responding equals defeat on my part. All I can say is, if you can give a comprehensive and convincing response, and bring up new arguments to support your position, then and only then will I feel obligated to respond. Otherwise, if you ignore the difficult questions and continue to restate theories based on numerous, less-than-obvious assumptions, it's not likely I can offer anything more.

 

yours,

 

- K

 

 

[Guest guest]

Sri Vakrathunda mahaakaaya kotisuryasamaprabhas

nirvighnam kurume deva subhakaryeshu sarvadaa

 

Re

(demigod worship does not lead to liberation)

 

Lord Shivas devotee will reach Mahesh Dham which is in spiritual world.

 

Vishnupuran 5.33.46-48

Whoever is Lord Hari he himself is Lord Shiva indeed.

Any human being mistake both the Lord to be different ,he/she surely goes to hell

In Siva Puran Sada Siva declares his non difference from Lord Vishnu also.

So when i read Krishna saying iam Shanker in Bhagwat Gita i Can not read that in any other way.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

[krishna_s]

 

Vishnupuran 5.33.46-48

Whoever is Lord Hari he himself is Lord Shiva indeed.

Any human being mistake both the Lord to be different ,he/she surely goes to hell

In Siva Puran Sada Siva declares his non difference from Lord Vishnu also.

 

 

 

Until I see the original Sanskrit, I am not inclined to believe that the above statements described by you actually exist.

 

Differences in numbering between different editions of the Vishnu Puraana make verse numbers alone, without the original Sanskrit, next to useless.

 

 

So when i read Krishna saying iam Shanker in Bhagwat Gita i Can not read that in any other way.

 

 

 

Neither would I had He not said that He is superior to the demigods at least ten times prior to this chapter.

 

- K

[Raguraman]

Hare Krishna,

 

 

O.K. Let us say that Lord Visnu and Para Brahman are different.

 

How do you explain Viswakarman Sukta that clearly mentions the whole creation rests on Unborn's navel. This one should agree is the mark of Lord Visnu. Besides the same Sukta of Rig Veda states that this same being is the one who truly bears all the names of Deities. Also the same Sukta says that this same BEING is higher than heavens, Earth, Devas and Asuras. These characteristics(like the one who bears the names and whole creation resting on his navel) are again that of Para Brahman. So one can conclude Lord Visnu and Para Brahman are IDENTICAL unlike Rudra etc.

 

Bhagavad Gita(Chapter 10 or all chapters) should be interpreted keeping this SHRUTI in mind.

 

How do you explain Purusa Sukta that again explains Lord Visnu as THE PURUSA. Advaita cannot answer it properly.

 

How do you explain Devi Sukta of Rig Veda that says, SHE(goddess) makes whoever SHE likes Rudra(Ugra), ChatumukhaBrahma, Rsi or a wise man. In the next verse SHE again tells that SHE is the one who bends Rudra's bow etc. Then later she says her home is the OCEANS, which is again refering to the IMMORTAL world of Narayana(Lord Visnu).

 

Notice in this SUKTA, SHE never says anything close to lording over VISNU.

 

So your conclusion that "Lord Visnu is but a fraction of Para Brahman's power" does not stand according to VEDAS.

 

What about Rig Veda again saying that Lord Visnu is the upholder of IMMORTAL worlds. No other Deva is mentioned but Lord Visnu.

 

Vedas clearly declare that Lord Visnu is IDENTICAL with Para Brahman.

 

---

 

Puranas

 

1. Vedas are primary authority.

2. Puranas or part of puranas that agree with Vedas are authentic.

 

Based on the above rules we can see that those interpretations of puranas that apparently shows Lord Visnu and Lord Shiva as identical are rejected.

[krishna_s]

 

Based on the above rules we can see that those interpretations of puranas that apparently shows Lord Visnu and Lord Shiva as identical are rejected.

 

 

So far, we haven't seen any such Puraanic statements at all. Without fail, almost every time someone claims that Shiva is equated to Vishnu in the Puraanas, they never quote a source which we can cross-examine. Perhaps such statements are present, but we have been given no reason to think so.

 

In order to cross-examine the evidence, we need to have the name of the source, the original Sanskrit, and the exact verse numbers. Numbering and Sanskrit may be slightly different in different editions, which is why we need all three pieces of information to find it.

 

[Guest guest]

krishna_s, the statement siva and krishna are same is given in gaudiya kantihara with all the references you want. interesting ? dont worry, the book also tells you how to get around it by a circuitous interpretation. you will find it satisfying until ask the basis of this interpretation. also you can read srimad bhagavatham to see how siva is supreme (poison drinking) and how you can defend that through vaishnava interpretation. then go on to call sankara a word juggler and advaitins, er mayavadis, as fools & rascals.

 

i showed you the president, head of state and head of family example to show how the same person can be in a hierarchical relationship with himself through different roles. if this is possible in the mundane world itself, why not for the supreme lord ? please take the essence of the analogy.

 

you are asking me why we are not worshipping meru, arjuna, gambling of the cheats etc. ? the lord says these are objects of meditation. you tell me why you are not meditating on them if you are following the instruction of the supreme lord ? i will tell you why they are not worhshipped. the avaialble sastras say that some deities are worshippable as the supreme lord. so we worship them as such. the available sastras do not tell us how to worship arjuna etc. but we will meditate on them because lord says so.

 

 

of the supreme lord, krishna is an amsa - an avatar. he is worshipped as the supreme because the sastras says he is pUrnavatar and svayam bhagavan. the sastras say that siva is supreme and non-different from the supreme lord. so he is worshipped as such. we have to see through the eyes of sastras. you asked why not worship arjuna, who is bewildered ? his bewilderment is just a pastime. you agree that the supreme lord pervades these universes through his manifestations and it includes arjuna. how can you say arjuna is not an object worthy of meditation because he seemed bewildered ?

 

the lord incarnates in different roles or avatars. in his incarnation as a deva, he may not manifest his full knowledge of his supreme nature. even among vishnu tattva, krishna, rama and narasimha are considered purnavatars. others are not. this does not mean others are inferior or different from vishnu.

 

gaudiya vaishnavism is a glorious tradition. sankirtan is the yuga dharma and the hare krishnas are all glorious for spreading it. the faults are like faults on the face of the moon. but it is better to refrain from criticism of other traditions. there is only gain in following vaishnavism. srila prabhupada has established krishna bhakti in all of us and is glorious. if we are absorbed in krishna bhakti, we will go to the spiritual planets (brahmaloka as sankara calls it or goloka or vaikunta). sankara says one understands tat tvam asi etc., from there on. if you dont want to, it is still okay. the lord will give us opportunity to serve and will take care of us.

[Guest guest]

despite who wins an argument, we are all ignorant because we have not realized the lord yet. imagine how easy it would be if krishna is around to clarify. or we are around him. perhaps we will not care about the clarification -

 

we should spread the sankirtan movement because the holy name is what will help the living entities like ourselves in this age to progress. also it will please caitanya, who made fun of arguments. i see iskcon is not spreading enough as it should be. some of these franchisees like bhaktivedanta ashram are doing that. jndas enthusiastically takes 100s of chanting beads for distribution. more of that should happen from all of us in this forum.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

the statement siva and krishna are same is given in gaudiya kantihara with all the references you want. interesting?

 

 

Actually the alleged reference isn't found in Gaudiya Kantahara as far as I am aware. What Gaudiya Kantahara does say is as follows:

 

 

7. 92

sivam saktiyutam sasvat trilingo guna-samvrtam

vaikarikas-taijasas ca tamasas catyaham tridha

 

"The truth about Lord Siva is that he is always covered with the three material coverings: vaikarika, tejasa, and tamasah (the modes of goodness, passion, and ignorance and their perverted egoic misconceptions). Because of these three modes of material nature, he always associates with the external energy and with egotism itself." (from the Srimad Bhagavatam 10.88.3)

 

The quality of Visnu is that he is above the modes of material nature.

 

7. 93

harir arhi nirgunam saksat purusam prakrtam param

sa sarvadrgupa-drstha tam bhajan nirguno bhavet

 

"Sri Hari, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is situated beyond the range of material nature. Therefore He is the Supreme Transcendental Person. He can see eveyrthing, inside and outside. Therefore, He is the Supreme overseer of all living entities. If someone takes shelter at His lotus feet and worships Him, he also attains a transcendental position." (from the Srimad Bhagavatam 10.88.5)

 

 

Thus a clear distinction is made between Shiva and Vishnu with reference to the conclusions of the Bhagavatam.

 

[Pritesh01]

Lord Çiva and Lord Brahmä are two chiefs of the demigods. They are full of mystic powers. For example, Lord Çiva drank an ocean of poison of which one drop was sufficient to kill an ordinary living being. Similarly, Brahmä could create many powerful demigods, including Lord Çiva. So they are éçvaras, or lords of the universe. But they are not the supreme powerful. The supreme powerful is Govinda, Lord Kåñëa. He is the Transcendence, and His transcendental attributes cannot be measured even by such powerful éçvaras as Çiva and Brahmä. Therefore Lord Kåñëa is the exclusive shelter of the greatest of all living beings. Brahmä is counted amongst the living beings, but he is the greatest of all of us. And why is the greatest of all the living beings so much attached to the transcendental topics of Lord Kåñëa? Because He is the reservoir of all enjoyment. Everyone wants to relish some kind of taste in everything, but one who is engaged in the transcendental loving service of the Lord can derive unlimited pleasure from such engagement. The Lord is unlimited, and His name, attributes, pastimes, entourage, variegatedness, etc. are unlimited, and those who relish them can do so unlimitedly and still not feel satiated. This fact is confirmed in the Padma Puräëa:

ramante yogino ’nante

satyänanda-cid-ätmani

iti räma-padenäsau

paraà brahmäbhidhéyate

“The mystics derive unlimited transcendental pleasures from the Absolute Truth, and therefore the Supreme Absolute Truth, the Personality of Godhead, is also known as Räma.”

There is no end to such transcendental discourses. In mundane affairs there is the law of satiation, but in transcendence there is no such satiation. Süta Gosvämé desired to continue the topics of Lord Kåñëa before the sages of Naimiñäraëya, and the sages also expressed their readiness to hear from him continuously. Since the Lord is transcendence and His attributes are transcendental, such discourses increase the receptive mood of the purified audience.

 

[Guest guest]

i "remember" seeing it a few years back and had thought it is interpretative. i quoted from memory and it seems it is not correct. i checked the gaudiya kantihara and it jndas is right. i apologize for misquoting. as far as siva goes, siva is isvara tattva and sometimes equiated with vishnu. how do you resolve the SB quote in the light of these statements ?

 

 

hh bhanu swami maharaj gave an interesting defense of gaudiya vaishnavism, which is as follows :

"are you referring to the verse among the vrsnis I am vasudeva? vasudeva of course can mean the dvaraka expansion of vraja krsna. but then krsna is

already in his dvaraka form at kuruksetra. it can also refer to balarama who is also the son of vasudeva. in any case, this and other lists given are only showing prominence in a group, such as asvattha among the

trees etc. so vasudeva among the vrsnis, and does not imply cause." i have asked him how in the context of 10.16, he says it does not imply cause. i will keep you posted on hearing from him.

 

definitely demigod worship is not allowed in sanatana dharma. i think it is true of even smarthas. but who is a demigod is perhaps still debatable.

[hare_krishna]

If you believe that krishna is the best then call the demi gods gods and Krishna Super God /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[yasodanandana]

yes... "Krsna is God" is not complete

 

krsna is the supreme personality of godhead

[Guest guest]

 

krishna_s, the statement siva and krishna are same is given in gaudiya kantihara with all the references you want. interesting ? dont worry, the book also tells you how to get around it by a circuitous interpretation. you will find it satisfying until ask the basis of this interpretation.

 

 

 

Since we know that the above is blatantly false, it need not be dignified with further response.

 

 

also you can read srimad bhagavatham to see how siva is supreme (poison drinking) and how you can defend that through vaishnava interpretation.

 

 

 

Poison drinking does not make one the supreme Brahman. I find it interesting that for all your righteous fury, you refuse to quote even one Sanskrit pramaana with verse numbers to defend your position. And on top of that, while alluding to single verses pulled out of context which appear to support your position, you manage to ignore everything else brought up to the contrary of your position. You haven't even addressed any of my arguments against your position. Your response regarding BG Chapter 10 is a case in point: since the question was, how can some of the vibhuutiis in chapter 10 be Krishna when they are not traditionally worshipped, your answer is along the lines of "they aren't worshipped because they are not worshippable." No explanation provided, yet we are expected to accept this as logical. Nor is it explained why some of these alleged forms of Krishna do not understand Him, even though they are Krishna, or how Krishna can be supreme if there isn't something that is subordinate to Him (one does not speak of something being superior to something else unless that something else is less). Many assumptions are provided by you with no obvious basis, such as the idea that Arjuna is Krishna Himself but becoming bewildered due to a liilaa, and that, too, in spite of the fact that Arjuna's understanding, despite being perfect towards the end of the Giitaa, never included any statement to the effect that He realized His oneness with Krishna. Or that all the demigods are obviously different forms of Krishna, even though they are spoken of as having their source in Krishna and also not understanding Him. Although these are essentially your conclusions, you expect us to accept them as a given and don't feel inclined to support them in any recognizable, evidence-based manner.

 

 

then go on to call sankara a word juggler and advaitins, er mayavadis, as fools & rascals.

 

 

 

Am I supposed to feel sorry for you because you can't put together an argument based on evidence? I think not. It is your job to substantiate your views, given that abundant evidence has now been explicitly presented to the contrary of them.

 

In all frankness, you seem extremely confused to me. On one hand, you are the champion of Advaita. But on the other hand, you praise Gaudiiya Vaishnavas who have a long history of objecting to Advaita. Srila Prabhupada is a great saint, except and save for all those times when he criticizes Advaita. Vaishnavas are bad people because they refer to Advaitins as mayavadis. But Vivekananda is good even though he blames all the problems of the world on Dvaitins (in his complete works). Sankirtana is the yuga dharma, but the conclusions inherent in its practice are sectarian conclusions invented by Vaishnavas and not supported by shaastra.

 

You must think that your ability to embrace contradictory conclusions makes you very advanced in your philosophical understanding. Most of us just think it is crass sentimentalism and confusion with little understanding of any philosophy. If you want to debate, then let's do so. Don't throw temper tantrums just because my views don't match yours.

 

yours,

 

- K