Hinduism

July 30, 2003

Sri Vakrathunda mahaakaaya kotisuryasamaprabhas

nirvighnam kurume deva subhakaryeshu sarvadaa

Re

(I think you should be more specific -- are you saying Hinduism is something that developed from Sanaatana-dharma, or that it is the same as Sanaatana-dharma?

Hinduism is a reference to the followers of Sanatan dharma)

Re

(How do you define Sanaatana-dharma? When I hear "Sanaatana-dharma," I think of the eternal spiritual culture that has its origins in, and is based on, the Vedas and their supplements, the Puraanas and Itihaasas. This may not be an exhaustive definition, but implicit within it is that one can use the Vedas/Puraanas/Itihaasas to determine what falls within and what does not fall within the scope of "Sanaatana-dharma.")

How can anyone define Sanatana? Yes Vedas and the supplements form the bases to understand dharma.

Re

(Can such a yardstick be applied to Hinduism? It's an important question to ask, because many people claim to be Hindus who believe in vastly different and often contradictory (and sometimes internally contradictory) things. Followers of Rajneesh insist that he is a Hindu. Chinamayananda/Vivekananda/Sai Baba followers say they are Hindus. All VHP Hindus say that Vaishnavas are Hindus, except when Vaishnavas start quoting shaastra to establish truth, at which time VHP types condemn them as being un-Hindu.)

Yes, but why should be judge and jury. if we apply the yardstick somewhere along the line we all fail the test. This can all be very subjective what it is important to one may not be that important to other. Everyone is on a different level of understanding. I do not follow anyone of above group I would not like to tell them they are wrong and I am right that will only bring confrontation.

A Hindu will willing enters any place of worship it is a virtue. Please follow your chosen path Krishna mentions many ways to go to him let him be the judge.

Jai Shree Krishna

krishna_s · July 30, 2003

OK, so how do you determine what is and what is not Sanaatana-dharma? How do you determine what is right and wrong?

Gauracandra · July 31, 2003

How do you determine what is right and wrong?

I like this question. Too often I find people projecting their own desires as to what is right and wrong onto "God" and using that as an excuse. You'll hear "Everything can be done in Krsna's service". And so they do this and that and just claim it was all for Krsna.

This is not a good way to establish a foundation for society.

So what is the means to know what is right and wrong. If you say Sastra - which one? and who's interpretation. And given that these can at best be generalities how do you apply them. If you say "Ask the guru" this becomes very troublesome. If the guru is genuine then it is alright. If he is not, then you run into trouble. If you say "Ask Supersoul" and you are a deluded individual who will do what you want anyways, then again you are in trouble.

So what is the basis for determining what is right and wrong?

July 31, 2003

Sri Vakrathunda mahaakaaya kotisuryasamaprabhas

nirvighnam kurume deva subhakaryeshu sarvadaa

RE

(OK, so how do you determine what is and what is not Sanaatana-dharma? How do you determine what is right and wrong?)

Jai Shree Krishna

Look at the meaning of Sanatan, eternal unending. How can I begin to quantify this?

Look at dharma on one hand and jiva with different desires on the other add karma to it you will have a big picture.

How to live in a family how to interact in a society we must look at Lord Ram he thought us by examples. Lord Krishna gives us the instructions. Lord Shiva and parvati are embodiment of sradha and vishvas.

This jiva has been wondering life after life in pursuit of happiness has finally asked who I am where am I going.

Jai Shree Krishna

August 3, 2003

(OK, so how do you determine what is and what is not Sanaatana-dharma? How do you determine what is right and wrong?)

Jai Shree Krishna

Look at the meaning of Sanatan, eternal unending. How can I begin to quantify this?

Look at dharma on one hand and jiva with different desires on the other add karma to it you will have a big picture.

How to live in a family how to interact in a society we must look at Lord Ram he thought us by examples. Lord Krishna gives us the instructions. Lord Shiva and parvati are embodiment of sradha and vishvas.

This jiva has been wondering life after life in pursuit of happiness has finally asked who I am where am I going.

Jai Shree Krishna

You say to look at Krishna's instructions. You refer also to the Raamaayanam. I have studied both, and I have found nothing there which defines "Hinduism."

On the other hand, I find much in Krishna's instructions which defines the Supreme Goal (Krishna), discusses the difference between Him and other devatas, indicates the solution to life's problems (exclusive bhakti to Him), discusses the difference between jiivaas and Paramaatmaa, and so on. Many of these things, I suspect, are not acceptable to you. But they are in Krishna's instructions in Bhagavad-Gita. Are they Hinduism, Sanaatana-dharma, both, or neither?

Govindaram · August 3, 2003

WE ARE ALL SOULS (JIVATMA)

NOT HINDU, MUSLIM, CHRISTIAN, JEWISH, ETC

ALL YOU HINDU'S PLEASE READ THE GITA CAREFULLY THEN TALK!

am I logged in? /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

August 4, 2003

<<OK, so how do you determine what is and what is not Sanaatana-dharma? How do you determine what is right and wrong?>>

anything that is not in accordance with gita or the vedas is not sanatana dharma. is it not simple?

guru, sadhus, and shastras help figure what is right and wrong if figuring is difficult.

jai sri krishna!

August 4, 2003

Sri Vakrathunda mahaakaaya kotisuryasamaprabhas

nirvighnam kurume deva subhakaryeshu sarvadaa

Re

(You say to look at Krishna's instructions. You refer also to the Raamaayanam. I have studied both, and I have found nothing there which defines "Hinduism.")

Sure, nor will you find reference to any institution that claims to follow Sanatan dharma

As I said before the word Hindu is a reference for others to id the followers of Sanatan dharma that does not mean all who claims to be Hindu are perfect .you will not be able to claim perfection for all the followers of any institute.

re

(On the other hand, I find much in Krishna's instructions which defines the Supreme Goal (Krishna), discusses the difference between Him and other devtas, indicates the solution to life's problems (exclusive bhakti to Him), discusses the difference between jiivaas and Paramaatmaa,)

According to you Hindus dont follow Sanatan dharma because they engage in worship of other devtas also, this practice never went on in Vedic times is that it?

Re

(. Many of these things, I suspect, are not acceptable to you. But they are in Krishna's instructions in Bhagavad-Gita. Are they Hinduism, Sanaatana-dharma, both, or neither?)

Why do you think it is not acceptable to me?

You see a worst in Hindu and judge the rest by that standard of course any one engaged in abominable act should be condemned but you cant tarnish every one with the same brush.

Hindus are inhabitants of Bharat who followed Vedas They have been called Hindus by outsiders the word Hindu has become synonym these are the same people whose ancestors have preserved the Shastras at a very high cost.

You can not expect same level of spiritual understanding and standard from all the jivas

Jai Shree Krishna

August 5, 2003

I'm not really sure whose question you are answering, but it wasn't mine. Therefore, I will restate it.

Based on Bhagavad-giitaa, a number of principles emerge. These are as follows:

1) Krishna is the Supreme Truth

2) Krishna is superior even to the demigods (anya-devatas)

3) Devotion to Krishna is both the means and the end of spiritual practice

4) Liberation consists of loving service to Him

5) Other yoga systems do not lead to liberation independent of bhakti-yoga.

6) Jiivaa-s are eternally different from each other and the Lord (see for example, BG 2.12)

Is the the above considered Hinduism, Sanaatana-dharma, both, or neither?

August 5, 2003

Sri Vakrathunda mahaakaaya kotisuryasamaprabhas

nirvighnam kurume deva subhakaryeshu sarvadaa

Re

(I'm not really sure whose question you are answering, but it wasn't mine. Therefore, I will restate it.)

If I was not answering to your question I don’t know who else it could be

Re

(Based on Bhagavad-giitaa, a number of principles emerge. These are as follows:

1) Krishna is the Supreme Truth

2) Krishna is superior even to the demigods (anya-devatas)

3) Devotion to Krishna is both the means and the end of spiritual practice

4) Liberation consists of loving service to Him

5) Other yoga systems do not lead to liberation independent of bhakti-yoga.

6) Jiivaa-s are eternally different from each other and the Lord (see for example, BG 2.12

Is the above considered Hinduism, Sanaatana-dharma, both, or neither)

This is a Vaishnava siddhanta and all Hindu accept that

Sanatan dharma (Hindu) has never been an exclusive worship of bhagvan shree Krishna. Worship of other devtas especially lord Shiva has been going on in Vedic times let me remind you shree Krishnas guru Sandipani is a devotee of Lord Shiva.

Lord Krishna says in BG9.15 some people worship me as one some as in duality and some in many universal form.

BG5.5 study of Sankhya and devotional service attains the same destination.BG17.4 men in the mode of goodness worship the devtas.

All of us the individual jiivaa s are at a different level of realisation in our quest to reach the supreme.

Krishna says hardly a few know me in truth.

I have no problem with other peoples mode of worship as long as they are pious and sincere that will help an individual to be that much closer to know the truth.

Jai Shree Krishna

August 6, 2003

I'm sorry, but I think you do not fully understand the purport of what I have typed.

If Krishna is the Supreme Deity, then logically some other deities are not supreme. Thus, the doctrine based on such exclusive monotheism, if it is to be called Sanaatana-dharma or Hinduism, means that other things which teach contradictory principles are logically not Sanaatana-dharma or Hinduism.

Although one can worship anyone he or she chooses (or choose not to worship as the case may be), Bhagavad-Giitaa confirms that the pure devotees of Krishna get liberation. No such claim is made for those who worship other demigods (anya-devatas). On the contrary, the Giitaa says:

antavattu phala.m teShaa.m tad bhavatyalpamedhasaam |

devaan devayajo yaanti madbhaktaa yaanti maamapi || giitaa 7.23 ||

aabrahmabhuvanaallokaaH punaraavartino'rjuna |

maamupetya tu kaunteya punarjanma na vidyate || giitaa 8.16 ||

This indicates that while those who worship anya-devatas go to their respective lokas, only those who worship Krishna go to Him. Up to the planet of Brahmaa, all of these lokas are within the material world and hence people there are still in samsaara. But those in Krishna's abode, being the supreme destination, never again experience birth and death.

You have correctly named this as "Vaishnava siddhaanta." It is, in fact, the siddhaanta of Bhagavad-Giitaa. Is it Sanaatana-dharma? Is it Hinduism? If it is either, then doctrines which teach that one can get liberation through any other worship clearly are not. One cannot have it both ways.

me remind you shree Krishnas guru Sandipani is a devotee of Lord Shiva.

Please substantiate the above with explicit shaastric reference.

Lord Krishna says in BG9.15 some people worship me as one some as in duality and some in many universal form.

Specifically, He refers to the fact that some people worship Him as one without a second (i.e. as Brahman), as the diverse in many (i.e. as one of the demigods), and as the universal form.

However, in the very next few verses He states that it is He who is the father and mother of the universe and its support. No such claim has been made for any anya devatas. On the contrary, Lord Krishna says that worship of those anya devatas is without proper understanding:

ye'pyanyadevataabhaktaa yajante shraddhayaanvitaaH |

te'pi maameva kaunteya yajantyavidhipuurvakam || giitaa 9.23 ||

BG5.5 study of Sankhya and devotional service attains the same destination.

However, in BG 11.54-11.55 He states that only by ananya-bhakti can He be attained. The verses should be understood in harmony with each other rather than in opposition, as I am sure you would agree. Taken together, we can conclude that while saankhya and bhakti have the same goal, nevertheless saankhya only leads to that goal via bhakti.

BG17.4 men in the mode of goodness worship the devtas.

Granted, but the mode of goodness is still of the material world and hence binding. Birth in a higher planet still means bondage - see BG 8.16 above. Also note BG 9.25 - those who worship the devatas go to the planets of the devatas, which according to BG 8.16 are still places of birth and death. But those who worship Krishna in 9.25 go to His supreme abode, from which there is no return to birth and death.

One can worship anyone he chooses, but if Sanaatana-dharma is based on teachings of Bhagavad-giitaa, as you have stated, that one cannot state that any worship is the same and call it Sanaatana-dharma. If you do not agree with this, then you must state that Bhagavad-giitaa is wrong, and that you know Sanaatana-dharma better than it does.

regards,

- K

August 8, 2003

Sri Vakrathunda mahaakaaya kotisuryasamaprabhas

nirvighnam kurume deva subhakaryeshu sarvadaa

(I'm sorry, but I think you do not fully understand the purport of what I have typed.

If Krishna is the Supreme Deity, then logically some other deities are not supreme. Thus, the doctrine based on such exclusive monotheism, if it is to be called Sanaatana-dharma or Hinduism, means that other things which teach contradictory principles are logically not Sanaatana-dharma or Hinduism.)

Sorry I do not entirely agree with that, the lord is in no way limited in any shape or form, and since the same supreme lord appears in many different forms, may seam contradictive in term but he /she is same without a second.

That is why Arjun asks in bg10.18 O lord the supreme mystic how shall I constantly think of you and how shall know you? In what VARIOUS FORMS are you to be remembered, my bhagvan?

According to Vaishnava siddhanta Krishna is supreme.

According to Saivite siddhanta Shiva is supreme.

Both of them quote from their respective Vedic scriptures

Yet there is enough reference to them being the same Sri Bhagvat 4.1-28Atri Muni desiring a son like him called upon the Bhagvan thinking of him only. But although he is far beyond the mental speculation of man, all three of you have come here. kindly let me know how you have come, I am greatly bewildered about this.4.1-30 the three devas told Atri Muni, Dear brahmana you are perfect in your determination, and therefore as you have desired so it will happen, it will not happen otherwise. We are all the SAME person upon whom you were meditating, and therefore we have all come to you. In Markand puran 43.12-19 talks about how the supreme lord creates maintain and destroy how they are interdependent they are not separate for a second they never live each other for a moment. Lord Krishna says the same in BG 10 I am beginning the middle and the end I am Vishnu I am Vedas I am Shankar I see no contradiction here.

.

RE

(Although one can worship anyone he or she chooses (or choose not to worship as the case may be), Bhagavad-Giitaa confirms that the pure devotees of Krishna get liberation. No such claim is made for those who worship other demigods (anya-devatas). On the contrary, the Giitaa says:

antavattu phala.m teShaa.m tad bhavatyalpamedhasaam |

devaan devayajo yaanti madbhaktaa yaanti maamapi || giitaa 7.23 ||

aabrahmabhuvanaallokaaH punaraavartino'rjuna |

maamupetya tu kaunteya punarjanma na vidyate || giitaa 8.16 |

This indicates that while those who worship anya-devatas go to their respective lokas, only those who worship Krishna go to Him. Up to the planet of Brahmaa, all of these lokas are within the material world and hence people there are still in samsaara. But those in Krishna's abode, being the supreme destination, never again experience birth and death. )

Lord Shiva resides in Mahesh dham his devotee go there which is in spiritual world.

Markand muni was foretold of his imminent death at a very young age unperturbed he chanted mrityamjai mantra and transcended, there is whole puran after him.

So when Krishna speaks about devtas he is talking about the ones that reside in swargloka.

RE

(You have correctly named this as "Vaishnava siddhaanta." It is, in fact, the siddhaanta of Bhagavad-Giitaa. Is it Sanaatana-dharma? Is it Hinduism? If it is either, then doctrines which teach that one can get liberation through any other worship clearly are not. One cannot have it both ways.)

Yes you can if you are looking at the same person. From a different angle.

Re

(me remind you shree Krishnas guru Sandipani is a devotee of Lord Shiva.

Please substantiate the above with explicit shaastric reference.)

I read that many moons ago and again here in this forum and one other forum also

Sorry I am not able to quote you any specific reference I am looking further in to this

Re

(BG5.5 study of Sankhya and devotional service attains the same destination.

However, in BG 11.54-11.55 He states that only by ananya-bhakti can He be attained. The verses should be understood in harmony with each other rather than in opposition, as I am sure you would agree. Taken together, we can conclude that while saankhya and bhakti have the same goal, nevertheless saankhya only leads to that goal via bhakti. )

I do not wish to argue but Krishna says all those things for a purpose.

RE

BG17.4 men in the mode of goodness worship the devtas.

(Granted, but the mode of goodness is still of the material world and hence binding. Birth in a higher planet still means bondage - see BG 8.16 above. Also note BG 9.25 - those who worship the devatas go to the planets of the devatas, which according to BG 8.16 are still places of birth and death. But those who worship Krishna in 9.25 go to His supreme abode, from which there is no return to birth and death.

One can worship anyone he chooses, but if Sanaatana-dharma is based on teachings of Bhagavad-giitaa, as you have stated, that one cannot state that any worship is the same and call it Sanaatana-dharma. If you do not agree with this, then you must state that Bhagavad-giitaa is wrong, and that you know Sanaatana-dharma better than it does.)

I never said Sanatan dharma is exclusively based on Bhagvat Gita although we all accept its authority nor do I claim to know Sanatan dharma I was merely arguing the point that Hindu is a label given to followers of Sanatan Dharma all this worship of devtas has been going on since time in memorial. I never d to idea that all worship leads to same goal but this are all stepping stone to know the supreme truth in the end. You must agree that not every one is same, we all have different level of experience in our journey and thus different mode of worship.

Jai Shree Krishna

August 8, 2003

Sorry I do not entirely agree with that, the lord is in no way limited in any shape or form, and since the same supreme lord appears in many different forms, may seam contradictive in term but he /she is same without a second.

The fact that Lord Has no limitations and has many forms, does not mean that any deity with a form is none other than Himself.

The main point is that only Krishna is acknowledged by Bhagavad-Giitaa to be the Supreme Deity, who can bestow liberation.

That is why Arjun asks in bg10.18 O lord the supreme mystic how shall I constantly think of you and how shall know you? In what VARIOUS FORMS are you to be remembered, my bhagvan?

According to Vaishnava siddhanta Krishna is supreme.

We have already discussed the correct understanding of Chapter 10. Arjuna asked Krishna by what vibhuutiis He pervades the material worlds. Krishna is not necessarily describing forms of His to be worshipped for liberation. He is describing His representation among various things. This is the only sensible interpretation. Otherwise, one would be forced to admit that Arjuna is Krishna, cheating is Krishna, Meru is Krishna, good speech is Krishna, etc which is absurd.

Nothing in chapter 10 can be honestly interpreted to assume that Shiva is Krishna also.

According to Saivite siddhanta Shiva is supreme.

Irrelevant. The point is what the siddhaanta is of scriptures of Sanaatana-dharma.

Both of them quote from their respective Vedic scriptures

Yet there is enough reference to them being the same Sri Bhagvat 4.1-28Atri Muni desiring a son like him called upon the Bhagvan thinking of him only. But although he is far beyond the mental speculation of man, all three of you have come here. kindly let me know how you have come, I am greatly bewildered about this.4.1-30 the three devas told Atri Muni, Dear brahmana you are perfect in your determination, and therefore as you have desired so it will happen, it will not happen otherwise. We are all the SAME person upon whom you were meditating, and therefore we have all come to you.

First of all, you referenced Bhagavad-Giitaa and Raamaayana to define Sanaatana-dharma. So conclusions about who is God and who is not must be consistent with these texts. But now you are jumping to another text.

Atri Muni requested that the Lord of the universe (jagad-iishvara) appear to give him a son. But he did not specify which Lord should appear since he did not know (SB 4.1.28). Brahmaa was the creator and in charge of rajo-guna. Shiva was the destroyer and in charge of tamo-guna. Vishnu is the maintainer and in charge of saattva. In this sense all three are jagad-iishavaras. In addition, Vishnu is the Lord of all, but this latter point was not known for sure by Atri Muni. In SB 4.1.30 the Deities do indeed state that they are all the same person - all three are, in their individual ways, lords of the universe or jagad-iishvaras, and all of them derive their power from Vishnu. Pulled out of context, this might seem to indicate that Brahmaa and Shiva are both Vishnu, but such an interpretation is not consistent with the rest of the Bhaagavatam. Lord Brahmaa was bewildered by Krishna in the 10th Canto when the former abducted the gopas who were Krishna's associates. If Lord Brahmaa is the same Vishnu, then how did he get bewildered by himself? Clearly he is not. Lord Shiva also is not Vishnu, for he himself devotedly worships Vishnu:

sattva.m vishuddha.m vasudevashbdita.m yadiiyate tatra pumaanapaavR^iTaH |

sattve cha tasmin bhagavaan vaasudevo hyadhokShajo me namasaa vidhiiyate || bhaa 4.3.23 ||

Of course, sometimes the Lord worships Himself to set an example, and one might doubt, "Isn't Shiva just a Vishnu-tattva trying to show other's how to behave, instead of an entity subordinate to Vishnu?" But Shiva's difference from Vishnu is confirmed elsewhere in the Bhaagavatam. Look at 10th Canto, Chapter 88, for example. Here Lord Shiva gives the boon to Vrikaasura that he can destroy anyone by touching his head. Then the same Vrikaasura attempts to test the boon by attacking Lord Shiva:

sa tadvarapariikShaartha.m shambhormuurdhni kilaasuraH |

svahasta.m dhaatum aarebhe so'bibhyat svakR^itaachchhivaH || bhaa 10.88.23 ||

To test Lord Shambhu's benediction, the demon then tried to put his hand on the lord's head. Thus Shiva was frightened because of what he himself had done. (bhaagavata puraaNa 10.88.23 )

tenopasR^iShTaH santrastaH paraadhaavan savepathuH |

yaavadanta.m divo bhuumeH kaaShThaanaamudagaadudak || bhaa 10.88.24 ||

As the demon pursued him, Lord Shiva fled swiftly from his abode in the north, shaking with terror. He ran as far as the limits of the earth, the sky and the corners of the universe (bhaagavata puraaNa 10.88.24)

If Lord Shiva is the same as the Supreme Vishnu, then why did Shiva flee? Indeed, it was Vishnu who saved him from this situation.

See also Bhaagavatam 10th Canto, Chapter 63, Lord Krishna and Shiva actually do battle, the latter working on the side of his devotee Baanaasura, whom he had given the boon of having a thousand arms. And what was the result of that battle?

pR^ithagvidhaani praayu.nkta piNaakyastraaNi shaar.ngiNe |

pratyastraiH shamayaamaasa shaar.ngapaaNiravismitaH || bhaa 10.63.12 ||

Lord Shiva, wielder of the trident, shot various weapons at Lord Krishna, wielder of Shaarnga. But Lord Krishna was not in the least perplexed: He neutralized all these weapons with appropriate counter-weapons. (bhaagavata puraaNa 10.63.12)

mohayitvaa tu girisha.m jR^imbhaNaastreNa jR^imbhitam |

baaNasya pR^itanaa.m shaurirjaghaanaasigadeShubhiH || bhaa 10.63.14)

After bewildering Lord Shiva by making him yawn with a yawning weapon, Lord Krishna proceeded to strike down Baanaasura's army with His sword, club and arrows. (bhaagavata puraaNa 10.63.14)

The conclusions of the above are obvious: Krishna (Vishnu) is in a superior position to Lord Shiva, though Lord Shiva is otherwise very powerful and respectable in his own right.

In other words, one can only show the apparent equality of Shiva and Vishnu by pulling isolated verses and ignoring context and the rest of scripture. If Vishnu, Shiva, and Brahmaa told Atri Muni that they are the same person, this should be interpreted in a way that is consistent with the rest of the Bhaagavtam, which clearly shows differences between the three Deities with Vishnu clearly being supreme.

In Markand puran 43.12-19 talks about how the supreme lord creates maintain and destroy how they are interdependent they are not separate for a second they never live each other for a moment.

First of all, the Maarkandeya Puraana is written in Sanskrit. We don't know if that's what the Maarkandeya says because you have only given us something this is presumed to be a translation of the same. Secondly, even assuming the translation above is faithful, nothing there proves that Shiva is the same as Vishnu - at best it shows that Shiva is never independent of Vishnu - which is in fact consistent with Vaishnava siddhaanta.

Lord Krishna says the same in BG 10 I am beginning the middle and the end I am Vishnu I am Vedas I am Shankar I see no contradiction here.

It would help if you used proper punctuation so I could figure out what you are trying to say.

We already discussed that Krishna is describing in BG Chapter 10 His various opulences, or in otherwords the various ways in which He is to be known in the material world. This is not necessarily a listing of alternate forms of Himself. Some (Vishnu, Raama, Krishna) are clearly Himself. But others (cheating among gamblers, Arjuna among Paandavas, fine speech among women) are not. If you say that Shiva is Krishna because He says so in chapter 10, then you must also agree that Arjuna is Krishna, cheating is Krishna, fine speech among women is Krishna, and that these are all equally worshippable. Such a conclusion is absurd. Hence the logic used to arrive at it is also rejected.

(Although one can worship anyone he or she chooses (or choose not to worship as the case may be), Bhagavad-Giitaa confirms that the pure devotees of Krishna get liberation. No such claim is made for those who worship other demigods (anya-devatas). On the contrary, the Giitaa says:

antavattu phala.m teShaa.m tad bhavatyalpamedhasaam |

devaan devayajo yaanti madbhaktaa yaanti maamapi || giitaa 7.23 ||

aabrahmabhuvanaallokaaH punaraavartino'rjuna |

maamupetya tu kaunteya punarjanma na vidyate || giitaa 8.16 |

This indicates that while those who worship anya-devatas go to their respective lokas, only those who worship Krishna go to Him. Up to the planet of Brahmaa, all of these lokas are within the material world and hence people there are still in samsaara. But those in Krishna's abode, being the supreme destination, never again experience birth and death. )

Interesting that no response has been tendered to the above

Lord Shiva resides in Mahesh dham his devotee go there which is in spiritual world.

Please substantiate this with shaastric pramaana (Sanskrit + verse numbers). Without such evidence, I will not accept your opinion.

Markand muni was foretold of his imminent death at a very young age unperturbed he chanted mrityamjai mantra and transcended, there is whole puran after him.

This is relevant to your position, how?

So when Krishna speaks about devtas he is talking about the ones that reside in swargloka.

He specifically says "anya-devata" not "only devatas residing in swargaloka." Besides, in chapter 8, He already stated that all devalokas up the planet of Brahmaa are in the material world. Shiva is the mind-born son of Brahmaa - there is no reason to think his loka is not included in this. Yet neither Brahmaa nor Shiva reside in svarga-loka, though their respective lokas are also in the material world. So far, you have not proven your position.

RE

(You have correctly named this as "Vaishnava siddhaanta." It is, in fact, the siddhaanta of Bhagavad-Giitaa. Is it Sanaatana-dharma? Is it Hinduism? If it is either, then doctrines which teach that one can get liberation through any other worship clearly are not. One cannot have it both ways.)

Yes you can if you are looking at the same person. From a different angle.

Vishnu, Raama, Narasimha are different ways of looking at Krishna. You have not proven that Shiva is also. Krishna defeated Shiva in battle (quoted above). Krishna also saved Shiva from his own devotee Vrikaasura. The Bhagavad-Giitaa and Bhaagavatam, which you accept as authorities on Sanaatana-dharma, hold that Vishnu is supreme and Shiva is in a subordinate position. Hence, any doctrine which holds that Shiva is supreme and equal to Vishnu is in conflict these texts. If these texts correctly explain Sanaatana-dharma, then conflicting doctrines are not Sanaatana-dharma. Unless you want to retract your statement and claim that BG and SB do not correctly discuss Sanaatana-dharma.

Saying "different angle of vision" is just misplaced sentimentalism. You haven't proven that Shiva is another form of Vishnu, and thus using a slogan does not make it any more correct.

Re

(me remind you shree Krishnas guru Sandipani is a devotee of Lord Shiva.

Please substantiate the above with explicit shaastric reference.)

I read that many moons ago and again here in this forum and one other forum also

Sorry I am not able to quote you any specific reference I am looking further in to this

If you cannot quote the reference, then I will not accept it as evidence. For all I know, you might have read it in a comic book.

Even if it were correct, it does not prove that Shiva is equal to Vishnu. Krishna's acceptance of Sandiipani Muni as guru is a mere formality; as He is the supreme iishvara there is no need for Him to learn anything, though He might give the appearance of doing so for the sake of setting an example.

Re

(BG5.5 study of Sankhya and devotional service attains the same destination.

However, in BG 11.54-11.55 He states that only by ananya-bhakti can He be attained. The verses should be understood in harmony with each other rather than in opposition, as I am sure you would agree. Taken together, we can conclude that while saankhya and bhakti have the same goal, nevertheless saankhya only leads to that goal via bhakti. )

I do not wish to argue but Krishna says all those things for a purpose.

The purpose being to enlighten those who are engaged in other yoga systems besides bhakti. One can only reach Him by Bhakti. This is the conclusion of Bhagavad-Giitaa. Hence, Saankhya is meant to lead to the Lord through bhakti, and not indepedently of it. There is no other sensible interpretation.

RE

BG17.4 men in the mode of goodness worship the devtas.

(Granted, but the mode of goodness is still of the material world and hence binding. Birth in a higher planet still means bondage - see BG 8.16 above. Also note BG 9.25 - those who worship the devatas go to the planets of the devatas, which according to BG 8.16 are still places of birth and death. But those who worship Krishna in 9.25 go to His supreme abode, from which there is no return to birth and death.

One can worship anyone he chooses, but if Sanaatana-dharma is based on teachings of Bhagavad-giitaa, as you have stated, that one cannot state that any worship is the same and call it Sanaatana-dharma. If you do not agree with this, then you must state that Bhagavad-giitaa is wrong, and that you know Sanaatana-dharma better than it does.)

I never said Sanatan dharma is exclusively based on Bhagvat Gita although we all accept its authority

You arguments are rapidly degenerating into non-sequiturs.

If Bhagavad-Giitaa is any kind of authority on Sanaatana-dharma, then it will not give misleading information. Bhagavad-giitaa describes Vishnu as the Supreme Deity, superior to all other devatas, including Brahmaa and Shiva. Accepting this, you must accept that it is the conclusion of Sanaatana-dharma. If it is the conclusion of Sanaatana-dharma, then other texts which also speak of Sanaatana-dharma must also teach the same conclusion. Saying "Bhagavad-giitaa is not the only authority" is not an excuse, nor is it relevant. Either it is an authoritative scripture, or it is not. You cannot praise it as authoritative while simultaneously introducing a contradictory conclusion.

nor do I claim to know Sanatan dharma

That's funny, I definitely recall seeing someone write:

"Santana dharma (Hindus) will always accept them they worship the same God Hindus have done since time in memorial but Iskcon only calls themselves Hindu when it suits them other times they make fun of them"

and

"iskcon is a vaishnav org.

yes it is hindu,

but prabhupada did not say it is because of deplomatic reason,

and his disciples do not say it because

like parrots they repeat what prabhupada said without looking into the facts of the matter.

it is time HK's accept openly that they are hindus (sanatana dharmis). "

It seems to me that the individual(s) who made these rather arrogant remarks did so because they thought they knew what Hinduism was and what Sanaatana-dharma was.

But I know you would never do that. You seem to be an intelligent person. I know you would never try to classify other Hindus as following Sanaatana-dharma when you just admitted that you do not know what it is: "nor do I claim to know Sanatan dharma"

I was merely arguing the point that Hindu is a label given to followers of Sanatan Dharma

So you say now. But the question which started this thread was whether ISKCON was "part of" Hinduism or Sanaatana-dharma. Some individuals claimed that they are part of both, but no one seems capable of defining either. Your answer above certainly does not answer the question.

all this worship of devtas has been going on since time in memorial.

Indeed, bondage in this material world has been going on since time immemorial. That proves nothing.

I never d to idea that all worship leads to same goal but this are all stepping stone to know the supreme truth in the end. You must agree that not every one is same, we all have different level of experience in our journey and thus different mode of worship.

But this is not the point. The point is to determine what Sanaatana-dharma is. Sanaatana-dharma can include worship of any devatas of one's choice, while at the same time including the concept of exclusive supremacy of Lord Vishnu. Your argument that Shiva is another form of Vishnu is not substantiated by appealing to the different statuses of various worshippers; he either is, or he is not. One's mental conceptions, when they contradict authoritative scriptures of Sanaatana-dharma, cannot be held equal to the conclusions of those scriptures.

This gets back to the earlier question: what is Sanaatana dharma? What is Hinduism? If Sanaatana-dharma is that religion revealed in texts like Bhagavad-Giitaa, then Sanaatana-dharma equals Vaishnavism and necessarily excludes Shaivism (the belief that Shiva is supreme), though it does not necessarily exclude Shiva worship. This is obvious since one can worship Shiva as a devotee or servant of Vishnu, and still be consistent with the principles of Bhagavad-giitaa, which are inclusive of those devotees who worship for reasons other than want of liberation.

yours,

- K

August 9, 2003

it is vaishnavism, a major part of hinduism (originally called sanatan dharma or varnasrama dharma).

jai sri krishna1

August 9, 2003

"Sorry I do not entirely agree with that, the lord is in no way limited in any shape or form, and since the same supreme lord appears in many different forms, may seam contradictive in term but he /she is same without a second."

here we have the main problem: as a devotee of krsna, i cannot join a religion that says like that about the eternal, all attractive and fully spiritual form of sri krsna

we cannot accept that the supreme truth is formless and faceless and she takes out some "puppet" or "idol" form to please neophytes with a mind not fit to think at the formless brahman

apparently, in wearing a dothi and sacred thread, in doing aratis with flames and bells, in using harmoniums and karatalas, in puttin off shoes entering temple.. and even in chanting mantras and mahamantra, it seems that we, hinduist and bhakta, are very close

but this is almost EXTERNAL!!!

an "hinduist" believes that i am a sentimental speaking of love for a ficticious character like krsna, a behavoiur that i will abandone when i will realize brahman (like they did with sankirtana movement of sri chaitanya).......

i believe that such philosophical position is attempting to put krsna personality in the realm of illusion and matter!!! and i judge it the biggest blasphemy

let us remember that in the pranama mantra of our parama guru, we say that he's come to defeat (nirvishesha) impersonalism and (sunyavadi) voidism !!

as a paradox, is possible to feel more close christians or muslims, that have a relatively vague concept of personalism, but they are indeed surely personalist, they think that the ultimate reality has name, face, he speaks, he listen, he chastizes, he's mercyful and so on!!

the thing is demonstrated by the preaching of harekrsna dharma in western countries...:

when we speak to the people in newyork, london, rome, paris, wien, selling books, in the temple, at rathayatra... with the 99% of the people we are meeting and discussing, the personal/impersonal issue simply does not come out...

but it comes out s t r o n g l y if THE PERSON HAS SOME IDEA OF INDIAN RELIGION FOR FOLLOWING SOME NEW AGE OR SOME INDIAN LIKE OSHO, MAHARISHI AND SAI BABA.... or beeing identificated with some form of "classic" hinduism

in this way, i, as a western pratictioner of gaudya vaishnavism, in most of cases, if i am asked to, i identificate myself more easily with christians than hindu... i can say that i am an hindu only to cut the subject and to use the precious time of a newcomer in the sunday feast, to speak of more interesting things... like the holy name, that we are not the body and so on.....

August 9, 2003

Sri Vakrathunda mahaakaaya kotisuryasamaprabhas

nirvighnam kurume deva subhakaryeshu sarvadaa

Your conclusion is based on Vaishnava siddhanta other siddhanta although also based in Vedic scriptures you reject, other side does the same we can go on for ever.

When Sri Krishna says in Bg 10 I am Vishnu, Rama you say O that is Vishnu tatva and just because others do not fit with Vaishnava siddhanta you reject that as absurd. There are a lot of things I do not understand but I can see a bias here.

From what I have read of the two sides there are a lot of common grounds also .you see when you read just any one side you may want to see the contradictive statement as out of tune with the general conclusion.

.but for me there is no difficulty accepting Krishna statement on face value or when the gods tell Atri Muni We are all one. And when I read Vishnu Shastra naam Lord Shiva is mentioned not ones but many times this is where my faith lies.

You related a nice story about lord Shiva and Vrikaasura to belittle lord Shiva (Prabhu ki lila Prabhu hi jane) to think that the lord who can destroy the whole universe is afraid of a tin pot demon is absurd to say the list he could have destroyed him by simply opening his eye. Only lesson I learn from here is that, those who get power for wrong reason are consumed by that same power.

Lord Shiva who is all auspicious (holds Maa Ganga on his head delivered 10000 Sagar putra) is capable to deliver any one who chants his holy name

Mahesh Dham is in spiritual abode it is all in shiv puran and I am pretty sure it is in Bhagvat puran also when I have the verse on hand I shall post this. also Markand puran verses when I go to India I intend to purchase this with the Sanskrit text cause at the moment I only have them in gujrati.so until than I shall take a rest from this debate. It has been a pleasure although at times it has taxed my little brain.

Jai shree Krishna

August 10, 2003

Your conclusion is based on Vaishnava siddhanta other siddhanta although also based in Vedic scriptures you reject, other side does the same we can go on for ever.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Is it too much to ask for proper punctuation and grammar?

When Sri Krishna says in Bg 10 I am Vishnu, Rama you say O that is Vishnu tatva and just because others do not fit with Vaishnava siddhanta you reject that as absurd. There are a lot of things I do not understand but I can see a bias here.

First of all, you aren't "seeing" properly, and your claims of bias are groundless.

We do not say Rama is Vishnu-Tattva because Krishna says in Chapter 10 "Among bowmen I am Raama." Raama is known to be Vishnu from many other sources. My point is that Chapter 10 lists only "vibhuutiis" by which Krishna is to be known in this material world. He is not saying that all of these vibhuutiis are exactly the same as Himself. Some of them are the same, and others are not. But this chapter is not saying anything about it one way or another. All it is saying is that the best of every category is a representation of Krishna.

Your speculation is that because Krishna says in this chapter "Among Rudras, I am Shiva," therefore Shiva and Krishna is the same. This is utter hogwash, plain and simple. Why? Because in the very same chapter, Krishna says "among daityas I am Prahlaad,among Paandavas I am Arjuna,among women, I am fine speech, intelligence, and good memory,among gamblers I am the cheat," etc.

Prahlaad is not Krishna. He is a devotee of Lord Narasimha. If he was the same as Vishnu he would not require Vishnu to save him from his father Hiranyakashipu. Arjuna is not Krishna. If he were Krishna, there would be no question of him becoming bewildered in the first place. Similarly, we do not worship "fine speech, intelligence, and good memory," nor do we worship cheating among gamblers.

You need to propose theories that make sense, rather than using logic which leads to untenable conclusions. *Think* about what you say, before you say it. For that matter, before you write some knee-jerk response, make it a point to respond to everything that is written, rather than ignoring everything that is brought up to the contrary of your pet theories.

but for me there is no difficulty accepting Krishna statement on face value or when the gods tell Atri Muni We are all one.

That's because you take these statements out of the context of the Bhaagaatam. You only accept the statements that seem to support your position, and any contradictory evidence you claim will "belittle" someone and thus reject it.

And when I read Vishnu Shastra naam Lord Shiva is mentioned not ones but many times this is where my faith lies.

Faith is nice, but conviction is more important. That some of Shiva's names are also names of Vishnu does not prove that Lord Shiva is the same as Vishnu. Your logic is like saying, "all persons with the name Krishna are the same person." What you fail to understand is the omnipotent Lord Vishnu has many names according to His many qualities, and some of these names may also be names of devatas according to their prevailing qualities which come from Him alone.

Anyway, I have already proven that Shiva is subordinate to Vishnu with explicit evidence from sources you yourself brought up. All you do is use those sources when you think it supports your position, only to ignore them later and find a new source when your arguments are refuted.

Clearly, you aren't looking for the conclusion of shaastra. Rather, you have decided in advance what the conclusion is and are looking for evidence to support it.

You related a nice story about lord Shiva and Vrikaasura to belittle lord Shiva (Prabhu ki lila Prabhu hi jane)

No, I quoted that evidence to show Shiva's subordinate position to Vishnu. Your claim that it somehow "belittles" him is your own unfounded presumption.

to think that the lord who can destroy the whole universe is afraid of a tin pot demon is absurd to say the list he could have destroyed him by simply opening his eye. Only lesson I learn from here is that, those who get power for wrong reason are consumed by that same power.

Well, Vyaasa knows a lot more about these things than you do. And he clearly documented that Lord Shiva was fearful of Vrikaasura's power and required Vishnu to save him. He also documented that Shiva was defeated by Krishna in battle. Either accept this evidence or admit that you do not accept the Bhaagavatam. Don't pick and choose to support your pet theories.

Mahesh Dham is in spiritual abode it is all in shiv puran

I'm calling your bluff. Show me where in Shiva Puraana it is to be found.

and I am pretty sure it is in Bhagvat puran also

I'm calling your bluff. Show me where in Bhagavata Puraana it is to be found.

when I have the verse on hand I shall post this.

I'm not holding my breath. Even if such evidence existed, it does not explain why Lord Shiva would lose in battle to Vishnu, or why Shiva would run in fear from a demon he helped to create, when he is supposedly the supreme God equal to Vishnu. Your claims that these stories "belittle" him are childish. Either admit that Shiva is not the supreme God, or tell everyone here you believe that the supreme God runs in fear from demons and can be bested in battle.

also Markand puran verses when I go to India I intend to purchase this with the Sanskrit text cause at the moment I only have them in gujrati.so until than I shall take a rest from this debate. It has been a pleasure although at times it has taxed my little brain.

I have all the major Puraanas in the original Sanskrit. I'm afraid that your attempts to pick isolated quotes out of context while ignoring everything contrary to your position, will not be successful in convincing me of anything.

There is an important lesson to be learned here, which is why I even jumped into this debate in the first place. The lesson is that people who arrogantly presume to classify/withdraw classification of Vaishnavas as Hindus (for example):

"Santana dharma (Hindus) will always accept them they worship the same God Hindus have done since time in memorial but Iskcon only calls themselves Hindu when it suits them other times they make fun of them"

...almost invariably don't know what they are talking about. "Hinduism" is often used by many people to refer to Sanaatana-dharma, but in fact many who use the term refer to a "religion" or "way of life" where one can believe whatever he wants rather than be loyal to the conclusions of shaastra. Such an example is demonstrated right here. This fellow who signs as "Jai shree Krishna" just puts forward all kinds of opinions which he claims to be based on shaastra, but rejects all evidence from the very same shaastras which contradict his position.

Vaishnavas will continue to regard themselves as followers of Sanaatana-dharma, and continue to offer respects to Lord Shiva as a great devata and a servant of Vishnu. Vaishnavas need not be concerned that some ignorant people with no shaastric knowledge consider them Hindus or do not consider them Hindus.

- K

August 10, 2003

Sri Vakrathunda mahaakaaya kotisuryasamaprabhas

nirvighnam kurume deva subhakaryeshu sarvadaa

your conclusion is based on Vaishnava siddhanta. Saivite siddhanta although also based in Vedic scriptures you reject. And Saivite rejects Vaishnava; we can go on for ever arguing.

RE

(I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Is it too much to ask for proper punctuation and grammar?)

No prabhu, I was always chastised at school for this; sorry I have never been very good at grammar.

Re

(Your speculation is that because Krishna says in this chapter "Among Rudras, I am Shiva," therefore Shiva and Krishna is the same. This is utter hogwash, plain and simple. Why? Because in the very same chapter, Krishna says "among daityas I am Prahlaad,among Paandavas I am Arjuna,among women, I am fine speech, intelligence, and good memory,among gamblers I am the cheat," etc.

Prahlaad is not Krishna. He is a devotee of Lord Narasimha. If he was the same as Vishnu he would not require Vishnu to save him from his father Hiranyakashipu. Arjuna is not Krishna. If he were Krishna, there would be no question of him becoming bewildered in the first place. Similarly, we do not worship "fine speech, intelligence, and good memory," nor do we worship cheating among gamblers.)

Not utter hogwash plain and simple why? Lord Shiva is worshiped by many, as supreme lord, all over India and the world over not a new phenomena’s when Sri Krishna says I am Shiva amongst Rudras. I check Siva puran where it is mentioned by Sada Shiva although I am above three guans, Brahma is manifested from my right Vishnu from my left and Rudra from my heart,so pardon me to think Krishna and Siva are same.

RE

(You need to propose theories that make sense, rather than using logic which leads to untenable conclusions. *Think* about what you say, before you say it. For that matter, before you write some knee-jerk response, make it a point to respond to everything that is written, rather than ignoring everything that is brought up to the contrary of your pet theories.)

I shall bear that in mind; at least I say what I think.

RE

(That's because you take these statements out of the context of the Bhaagaatam. You only accept the statements that seem to support your position, and any contradictory evidence you claim will "belittle" someone and thus reject it.)

Is this not what every one will do? Are you doing any different? Lords lila we do not understand and we make conclusion based on it, do you not think lord Siva could kill that demon?

So when Lord Krishna runs away from the battle field do we conclude that he was afraid of Jarasandh and when he got help of Bhima to kill Jarasandh do we say Bhima is greater than Sri Krishna?

RE

(Faith is nice, but conviction is more important. That some of Shiva's names are also names of Vishnu does not prove that Lord Shiva is the same as Vishnu. Your logic is like saying, "all persons with the name Krishna are the same person." What you fail to understand is the omnipotent Lord Vishnu has many names according to His many qualities, and some of these names may also be names of devatas according to their prevailing qualities which come from Him alone.)

So who is speculating now? prabhu am not talking about some mundane persons name we are talking about the lords, whose name is identical he is not different from them. So you would not mind chanting Aum namo shivay, sambhave namma ha, Rudraya namma ha etc

RE

(Anyway, I have already proven that Shiva is subordinate to Vishnu with explicit evidence from sources you yourself brought up. All you do is use those sources when you think it supports your position, only to ignore them later and find a new source when your arguments are refuted.)

I am yet to be convinced by you and since I see no different between the two, the apparent subordination does not matter

Re

(Clearly, you aren't looking for the conclusion of shaastra. Rather, you have decided in advance what the conclusion is and are looking for evidence to support it).

Who can conclude Shastras. Lord reveals himself to a sincere seeker, one who thinks who knows it all he disappear from their sight.

)

RE

(No, I quoted that evidence to show Shiva's subordinate position to Vishnu. Your claim that it somehow "belittles" him is your own unfounded presumption

Well, Vyaasa knows a lot more about these things than you do. And he clearly documented that Lord Shiva was fearful of Vrikaasura's power and required Vishnu to save him. He also documented that Shiva was defeated by Krishna in battle. Either accept this evidence or admit that you do not accept the Bhaagavatam. Don't pick and choose to support your pet theories. )

I have already answered this in relation to Sri Ranchodrai

RE

(I'm calling your bluff. Show me where in Shiva Puraana it is to be found. )

Vidhesvar sanhita chapter 17 and while you at it read ch 18 Bandhan & moksh.

Also you may care to read Markand puran chapter 43 Markand speaks to kostukine about Brahmas 100 years

Since you have all the purans you may care to read otherwise you will have to wait.

Re

(I'm calling your bluff. Show me where in Bhagavata Puraana it is to be found.)

I will look up.

Re

(I'm not holding my breath. Even if such evidence existed, it does not explain why Lord Shiva would lose in battle to Vishnu, or why Shiva would run in fear from a demon he helped to create, when he is supposedly the supreme God equal to Vishnu. Your claims that these stories "belittle" him are childish. Either admit that Shiva is not the supreme God, or tell everyone here you believe that the supreme God runs in fear from demons and can be bested in battle.)

Ranchodrai Ki Jai.

Re

(I have all the major Puraanas in the original Sanskrit. I'm afraid that your attempts to pick isolated quotes out of context while ignoring everything contrary to your position, will not be successful in convincing me of anything.

There is an important lesson to be learned here, which is why I even jumped into this debate in the first place. The lesson is that people who arrogantly presume to classify/withdraw classification of Vaishnavas as Hindus (for example):

"Santana dharma (Hindus) will always accept them they worship the same God Hindus have done since time in memorial but Iskcon only calls themselves Hindu when it suits them other times they make fun of them")

I stand by what I said I never said they are not Hindus or follower of Sanatan dharma but I cant help it if they say they are not Hindus or if they make fun of Hindus.

RE

(...almost invariably don't know what they are talking about. "Hinduism" is often used by many people to refer to Sanaatana-dharma, but in fact many who use the term refer to a "religion" or "way of life" where one can believe whatever he wants rather than be loyal to the conclusions of shaastra. Such an example is demonstrated right here. This fellow who signs as "Jai shree Krishna" just puts forward all kinds of opinions which he claims to be based on shaastra, but rejects all evidence from the very same shaastras which contradict his position.

Vaishnavas will continue to regard themselves as followers of Sanaatana-dharma, and continue to offer respects to Lord Shiva as a great devata and a servant of Vishnu. Vaishnavas need not be concerned that some ignorant people with no shaastric knowledge consider them Hindus or do not consider them Hindus. )

I salute your intelligence, and I am quite happy in my ignorance.Thank you.

Jai Shree Krishna

August 12, 2003

...even when the evidence is clearly arrayed against them.

Not utter hogwash plain and simple why? Lord Shiva is worshiped by many, as supreme lord, all over India and the world over

Sai Baba is worshipped by many as supreme Lord, all over India.

Ramakrishna is worshipped by many as supreme Lord, all over India.

AIDS-amma, a new deity patronized by AIDS victims in South India, is also worshipped by many as Supreme Lord in India.

Truth is not determined by popular vote, but by explicit scriptural evidence.

Anyway, in Vedic culture, many things are worshipped with arati even though they are not the Supreme Lord - cows, a newly initiated brahmachari, the guru, the King, etc. The mere fact that someone is worshipped does not make him the supreme Lord.

I check Siva puran where it is mentioned by Sada Shiva although I am above three guans, Brahma is manifested from my right Vishnu from my left and Rudra from my heart,so pardon me to think Krishna and Siva are same.

First, you still have not provided any explicit evidence for the above.

Second, even if such evidence was present in a Puraana, it must be rejected, because it contradicts shruti:

atha puruSho ha vai naaraayaNo 'kaamayata prajaa sR^ijeyeti |

naaraayaNaat praaNo jaayate manaH sarvendriyaaNi cha kha.m vaayur jyotir aapaH pR^ithivii vishvasya dhaariNii |

naaraayaNaad brahmaa jaayate |

naaraayaNaad rudro jaayate |

naaraayaNaad indro jaayate |

naaraayaNat prajaapatiH prajaayate |

naaraayaNaad dvadashaadityaa rudraa vasavaH sarvaaNi chandaa.msi naaraayaNaad eva samutpadyante naaraayaNat pravartante naaraayaNe praliiyante |

etad R^ig-vedo-shiro 'dhiite || naaraayaNopaniShad 1 ||

Naaraayana is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. He desired, "I shall create children." From Naaraayana the life breath, mind, all the senses, either, air, fire, water, and earth, which maintains the universe, were born. From Naaraayana Brahmaa was born. From Naaraayana Shiva was born. From Naaraayana Indra was born. From Naaraayana Prajaapati was born. From Naaraayana the twelve Adityas, the Rudras, the Vasus, and all the Vedic hymns were born. From Naaraayana they were manifested. Into Naaraayana they again enter. This is the crown of the R^ig Veda (naaraayaNopaniShad 1).

Naaraayana Upanishad is one of the 108 Principle Upanishads listed in the Muktika Upanishad and accepted even by Advaitins.

RE

(That's because you take these statements out of the context of the Bhaagaatam. You only accept the statements that seem to support your position, and any contradictory evidence you claim will "belittle" someone and thus reject it.)

Is this not what every one will do? Are you doing any different?

*You* are the one pulling statements out of context and ignoring everything that doesn't agree with your pet theories.

I have rejected no evidence presented by you, because you have not presented any evidence (Sanskrit + verse numbers). In the few places where I have been able to cross-examine your Bhaagavatam references, I have explained the correct meaning of them based on context.

You, on the other hand, just ignore everything that is contrary to your position with no good explanation. "Oh that belittles Lord Shiva. I won't accept it." Do you or do you not accept ALL of the Bhaagavatam? Make up your mind before you start quoting.

Lords lila we do not understand and we make conclusion based on it, do you not think lord Siva could kill that demon?

What you or I think is irrelevant. Lord Shiva ran from that demon in fear of his life. This is clearly stated in the Bhaagavatam - see the original Sanskrit already quoted by me. Now the burden of proof is on you to show that someone who was "fearful" and his body "shaking out of fear" from the demon's attack can nevertheless be the Supreme Lord, equal to Vishnu.

So when Lord Krishna runs away from the battle field do we conclude that he was afraid of Jarasandh and when he got help of Bhima to kill Jarasandh do we say Bhima is greater than Sri Krishna?

You need to get your facts straight.

Krishna and Balaraama by themselves defeated Jaraasandha and his entire army SEVENTEEN times. This is clearly documented in the Bhaagavatam, but you were too busy pulling verses out of context so you probably didn't notice. Each time it was Jaraasandha who fled from Krishna. Only when he was able to amass an army for an 18th strike did Krishna blow him off by retreating to the mountain. Then Jaraasandha set fire to the mountain, thinking that he could kill Krishna, and left. Krishna and Balaraama then jumped off the mountain peak to the ground unobserved, a distance of "96 miles," and survived -- all according to the Bhaagavatam.

As a side note, if any Advaitin wishes me to believe they are God, I will be happy to do so if he can demonstrate that he can fall a distance of 96 miles just for fun and survive unscathed.

Krishna was not prepared to kill Jaraasandha because this was to be Bhiima's fate. But He showed he could defeat Jaraasandha any time by smashing his army 17 times and sending Jaraasandha packing each time. In order to stop Jaraasandha's harassment of Mathura, Krishna would either have to fake His own death or kill Jaraasandha. He chose the former, thus fooling Jaraasandha into leaving Mathura alone, which allowed Bhiima the opportunity to finish him off later.

Krishna's running from Jaraasandha is not the same as Shiva's running from Vrikaasura. Krishna had an agenda. Shiva was running for his life. All this is clear to anyone who even superficially reads the Bhaagavatam.

And saying that Krishna needed Bhiima to kill Jaraasandha is just plain wrong. Krishna had defeated Jaraasandha 17 times already. It was Krishna who instructed Bhiima how to kill Jaraasandha.

Krishna is the Supreme Lord and Lord Shiva is a subordinate deity who is His devotee. All the evidence has already been quoted to support this. Saying "I'm not convinced" over and over again just proves that you don't change your conclusions to suit the evidence - you try to change the evidence to suit your conclusion.

As for the rest of your theory, you have provided no explicit Sanskrit pramaanas to support it. So I don't feel inclined to justify your claims with a response. You need to (1) show us explicit evidence proving that Shiva is equal to Vishnu AND (2) convincingly explain away the existing evidence from the Bhaagavatam and Upanishads showing that Shiva is less than Vishnu.*** Or else you should retract your claims.

regards,

- K

*** helpful hint: whining that something "belittles" Shiva is not a convincing explanation.

August 13, 2003

most "hindu's" worship demi-gods for material oppulences and avoid bhakti which denounces attaining material oppulences for sense gratification.

August 13, 2003

Hindus who worship demigods according to scriptural ordinances are far better that followers of some God man like Sai Baba

August 16, 2003

Sri Vakrathunda mahaakaaya kotisuryasamaprabha

nirvighnam kurume deva subhakaryeshu sarvadaa

that is because some of us have different faith, each see according to his faith and insight.

I shall go on worshiping lord Krishna alongside lord Shiva not because it is my pat theory.

That is because shree Krishna says so because lord Siva’s names are mentioned in Vishnu shastra naam.

There are statement in Bhagvat purans to that effect also

Vishupuran say this 5.33-46 yo harih sa siva saksad yah sivah sa svayam harih ye tayor bhedam ati sthan narak aya bhave narah.

Whoever is lord hari, he himself is lord shiva indeed any human being mistake both the lords to be different,he/she surely goes to hell.

Yatha Siva mayo Visnuh

Sivasya hrdyam Visnur Visnoz ca hrdayam Sivah(Skanda puran)

Goswami tulsidas says the same thing in ram charitra manas

I will not bother to state any quotes from Siva puran since you have already stated you reject anything that contradict your position, that’s fine saves me the bother. I wonder why Vyasdev should write them with the help of Ganesh if they were to be rejected.

Your equating of lord Sivas to today’s practice can only be classed as sad.

Lord ram worshiped Siva at rameshsvaram. When the devas were disturbed by the poison that came out from the ocean the whole world was trembling they sought his shelter. Vedic people who worshiped lord Siva did not do it out of ignorance

nothing can belittle lord Shiva he is supreme renunciate he is easily pleased. His very name is auspicious.

I was pointing out your trying to belittling him. Even if you just accept him as greatest devotee he can not be fearful, any self realised soul, would know that he is indestructible where is the question of fear

Don’t think I forgot to read about Krishnas lila .your question was does the supreme lord run in fear from demons and bested in battle? And the simple answer is yes that is why he is known as Ranchodrai, he does run away from the battle the demon definitely thought that. Does this make him any less, no lords lila are or glorious.

Just like a father who allows his child to overpower him or the father may some times exhibit fear of the child thatis in no way the child is greater than the father. Lord Shiva would not kill the demon simply because he was his devotee.

Lord Siva would not kill the demon tripurari also because he was a devotee, so the devas conspired to teach them wrong dharma only than he was killed. Demon jalandhar the husband of vrinda also was killed by Siva after Vishnu disguised as jalendhar tricked her.

There are many instance in purans where special circumstance were required to kill a specific demon.Kamadev lost his life trying to wake lord Siva so that he may marry maa parvati again only the child born of them(Kartikay) could kill the demon.

When no one was able to kill mahisasura maa Durga appeared. Does this all mean the supreme lord was incapable to kill all this demon?no

Hindus ,followers of Sanatan dharma follow many paths as mentioned in shastra but I am not prepared to say to them mine is better than yours, every one is born with some faith.and acts accordingly

Jai Shree Krishna

August 17, 2003

Fine. Ignore all the evidence which contradicts your theory. Ignore all arguments against your misinterpretations. Repeat your misinterpretations as if they are undisputed facts. Repeat your out-of-context evidence as if no one has given you a more sensible explanation. Who am I to force you to adhere to standards? You either accept all of the shaastras unconditionally, or you do not.

As far as the Vishnu Puraana quote, it is easily reconciled by Brahma-samhitaa 5.45 which explains Lord Shiva's sameness with Vishnu while explaining how he is different. And the problems with RCM have already been explained. Why suddenly is RCM an authority and Bhaagavatam is not? I guess authority is determined by whichever source can be used to support your opinion.

August 17, 2003

...even when the evidence is clearly arrayed against them. So, I'll just repost my previous arguments until they have been refuted properly.

In reply to:

--

Not utter hogwash plain and simple why? Lord Shiva is worshiped by many, as supreme lord, all over India and the world over

--

Sai Baba is worshipped by many as supreme Lord, all over India.

Ramakrishna is worshipped by many as supreme Lord, all over India.

AIDS-amma, a new deity patronized by AIDS victims in South India, is also worshipped by many as Supreme Lord in India.

Truth is not determined by popular vote, but by explicit scriptural evidence.

Anyway, in Vedic culture, many things are worshipped with arati even though they are not the Supreme Lord - cows, a newly initiated brahmachari, the guru, the King, etc. The mere fact that someone is worshipped does not make him the supreme Lord.

In reply to:

--

I check Siva puran where it is mentioned by Sada Shiva although I am above three guans, Brahma is manifested from my right Vishnu from my left and Rudra from my heart,so pardon me to think Krishna and Siva are same.

--

First, you still have not provided any explicit evidence for the above.

Second, even if such evidence was present in a Puraana, it must be rejected, because it contradicts shruti:

atha puruSho ha vai naaraayaNo 'kaamayata prajaa sR^ijeyeti |

naaraayaNaat praaNo jaayate manaH sarvendriyaaNi cha kha.m vaayur jyotir aapaH pR^ithivii vishvasya dhaariNii |

naaraayaNaad brahmaa jaayate |

naaraayaNaad rudro jaayate |

naaraayaNaad indro jaayate |

naaraayaNat prajaapatiH prajaayate |

naaraayaNaad dvadashaadityaa rudraa vasavaH sarvaaNi chandaa.msi naaraayaNaad eva samutpadyante naaraayaNat pravartante naaraayaNe praliiyante |

etad R^ig-vedo-shiro 'dhiite || naaraayaNopaniShad 1 ||

Naaraayana is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. He desired, "I shall create children." From Naaraayana the life breath, mind, all the senses, either, air, fire, water, and earth, which maintains the universe, were born. From Naaraayana Brahmaa was born. From Naaraayana Shiva was born. From Naaraayana Indra was born. From Naaraayana Prajaapati was born. From Naaraayana the twelve Adityas, the Rudras, the Vasus, and all the Vedic hymns were born. From Naaraayana they were manifested. Into Naaraayana they again enter. This is the crown of the R^ig Veda (naaraayaNopaniShad 1).

Naaraayana Upanishad is one of the 108 Principle Upanishads listed in the Muktika Upanishad and accepted even by Advaitins.

In reply to:

--

RE

(That's because you take these statements out of the context of the Bhaagaatam. You only accept the statements that seem to support your position, and any contradictory evidence you claim will "belittle" someone and thus reject it.)

Is this not what every one will do? Are you doing any different?

--

*You* are the one pulling statements out of context and ignoring everything that doesn't agree with your pet theories.

I have rejected no evidence presented by you, because you have not presented any evidence (Sanskrit + verse numbers). In the few places where I have been able to cross-examine your Bhaagavatam references, I have explained the correct meaning of them based on context.

You, on the other hand, just ignore everything that is contrary to your position with no good explanation. "Oh that belittles Lord Shiva. I won't accept it." Do you or do you not accept ALL of the Bhaagavatam? Make up your mind before you start quoting.

In reply to:

--

Lords lila we do not understand and we make conclusion based on it, do you not think lord Siva could kill that demon?

--

What you or I think is irrelevant. Lord Shiva ran from that demon in fear of his life. This is clearly stated in the Bhaagavatam - see the original Sanskrit already quoted by me. Now the burden of proof is on you to show that someone who was "fearful" and his body "shaking out of fear" from the demon's attack can nevertheless be the Supreme Lord, equal to Vishnu.

In reply to:

--

So when Lord Krishna runs away from the battle field do we conclude that he was afraid of Jarasandh and when he got help of Bhima to kill Jarasandh do we say Bhima is greater than Sri Krishna?

--

You need to get your facts straight.

Krishna and Balaraama by themselves defeated Jaraasandha and his entire army SEVENTEEN times. This is clearly documented in the Bhaagavatam, but you were too busy pulling verses out of context so you probably didn't notice. Each time it was Jaraasandha who fled from Krishna. Only when he was able to amass an army for an 18th strike did Krishna blow him off by retreating to the mountain. Then Jaraasandha set fire to the mountain, thinking that he could kill Krishna, and left. Krishna and Balaraama then jumped off the mountain peak to the ground unobserved, a distance of "96 miles," and survived -- all according to the Bhaagavatam.

As a side note, if any Advaitin wishes me to believe they are God, I will be happy to do so if he can demonstrate that he can fall a distance of 96 miles just for fun and survive unscathed.

Krishna was not prepared to kill Jaraasandha because this was to be Bhiima's fate. But He showed he could defeat Jaraasandha any time by smashing his army 17 times and sending Jaraasandha packing each time. In order to stop Jaraasandha's harassment of Mathura, Krishna would either have to fake His own death or kill Jaraasandha. He chose the former, thus fooling Jaraasandha into leaving Mathura alone, which allowed Bhiima the opportunity to finish him off later.

Krishna's running from Jaraasandha is not the same as Shiva's running from Vrikaasura. Krishna had an agenda. Shiva was running for his life. All this is clear to anyone who even superficially reads the Bhaagavatam.

And saying that Krishna needed Bhiima to kill Jaraasandha is just plain wrong. Krishna had defeated Jaraasandha 17 times already. It was Krishna who instructed Bhiima how to kill Jaraasandha.

Krishna is the Supreme Lord and Lord Shiva is a subordinate deity who is His devotee. All the evidence has already been quoted to support this. Saying "I'm not convinced" over and over again just proves that you don't change your conclusions to suit the evidence - you try to change the evidence to suit your conclusion.

As for the rest of your theory, you have provided no explicit Sanskrit pramaanas to support it. So I don't feel inclined to justify your claims with a response. You need to (1) show us explicit evidence proving that Shiva is equal to Vishnu AND (2) convincingly explain away the existing evidence from the Bhaagavatam and Upanishads showing that Shiva is less than Vishnu.*** Or else you should retract your claims.

regards,

- K

*** helpful hint: whining that something "belittles" Shiva is not a convincing explanation.

August 17, 2003

In reply to:

--

Your conclusion is based on Vaishnava siddhanta other siddhanta although also based in Vedic scriptures you reject, other side does the same we can go on for ever.

--

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Is it too much to ask for proper punctuation and grammar?

In reply to:

--

When Sri Krishna says in Bg 10 I am Vishnu, Rama you say O that is Vishnu tatva and just because others do not fit with Vaishnava siddhanta you reject that as absurd. There are a lot of things I do not understand but I can see a bias here.

--

First of all, you aren't "seeing" properly, and your claims of bias are groundless.

We do not say Rama is Vishnu-Tattva because Krishna says in Chapter 10 "Among bowmen I am Raama." Raama is known to be Vishnu from many other sources. My point is that Chapter 10 lists only "vibhuutiis" by which Krishna is to be known in this material world. He is not saying that all of these vibhuutiis are exactly the same as Himself. Some of them are the same, and others are not. But this chapter is not saying anything about it one way or another. All it is saying is that the best of every category is a representation of Krishna.

Your speculation is that because Krishna says in this chapter "Among Rudras, I am Shiva," therefore Shiva and Krishna is the same. This is utter hogwash, plain and simple. Why? Because in the very same chapter, Krishna says "among daityas I am Prahlaad,among Paandavas I am Arjuna,among women, I am fine speech, intelligence, and good memory,among gamblers I am the cheat," etc.

Prahlaad is not Krishna. He is a devotee of Lord Narasimha. If he was the same as Vishnu he would not require Vishnu to save him from his father Hiranyakashipu. Arjuna is not Krishna. If he were Krishna, there would be no question of him becoming bewildered in the first place. Similarly, we do not worship "fine speech, intelligence, and good memory," nor do we worship cheating among gamblers.

You need to propose theories that make sense, rather than using logic which leads to untenable conclusions. *Think* about what you say, before you say it. For that matter, before you write some knee-jerk response, make it a point to respond to everything that is written, rather than ignoring everything that is brought up to the contrary of your pet theories.

In reply to:

--

but for me there is no difficulty accepting Krishna statement on face value or when the gods tell Atri Muni We are all one.

--

That's because you take these statements out of the context of the Bhaagaatam. You only accept the statements that seem to support your position, and any contradictory evidence you claim will "belittle" someone and thus reject it.

In reply to:

--

And when I read Vishnu Shastra naam Lord Shiva is mentioned not ones but many times this is where my faith lies.

--

Faith is nice, but conviction is more important. That some of Shiva's names are also names of Vishnu does not prove that Lord Shiva is the same as Vishnu. Your logic is like saying, "all persons with the name Krishna are the same person." What you fail to understand is the omnipotent Lord Vishnu has many names according to His many qualities, and some of these names may also be names of devatas according to their prevailing qualities which come from Him alone.

Anyway, I have already proven that Shiva is subordinate to Vishnu with explicit evidence from sources you yourself brought up. All you do is use those sources when you think it supports your position, only to ignore them later and find a new source when your arguments are refuted.

Clearly, you aren't looking for the conclusion of shaastra. Rather, you have decided in advance what the conclusion is and are looking for evidence to support it.

In reply to:

--

You related a nice story about lord Shiva and Vrikaasura to belittle lord Shiva (Prabhu ki lila Prabhu hi jane)

--

No, I quoted that evidence to show Shiva's subordinate position to Vishnu. Your claim that it somehow "belittles" him is your own unfounded presumption.

In reply to:

--

to think that the lord who can destroy the whole universe is afraid of a tin pot demon is absurd to say the list he could have destroyed him by simply opening his eye. Only lesson I learn from here is that, those who get power for wrong reason are consumed by that same power.

--

Well, Vyaasa knows a lot more about these things than you do. And he clearly documented that Lord Shiva was fearful of Vrikaasura's power and required Vishnu to save him. He also documented that Shiva was defeated by Krishna in battle. Either accept this evidence or admit that you do not accept the Bhaagavatam. Don't pick and choose to support your pet theories.

In reply to:

--

Mahesh Dham is in spiritual abode it is all in shiv puran

--

I'm calling your bluff. Show me where in Shiva Puraana it is to be found.

In reply to:

--

and I am pretty sure it is in Bhagvat puran also

--

I'm calling your bluff. Show me where in Bhagavata Puraana it is to be found.

In reply to:

--

when I have the verse on hand I shall post this.

--

I'm not holding my breath. Even if such evidence existed, it does not explain why Lord Shiva would lose in battle to Vishnu, or why Shiva would run in fear from a demon he helped to create, when he is supposedly the supreme God equal to Vishnu. Your claims that these stories "belittle" him are childish. Either admit that Shiva is not the supreme God, or tell everyone here you believe that the supreme God runs in fear from demons and can be bested in battle.

In reply to:

--

also Markand puran verses when I go to India I intend to purchase this with the Sanskrit text cause at the moment I only have them in gujrati.so until than I shall take a rest from this debate. It has been a pleasure although at times it has taxed my little brain.

--

I have all the major Puraanas in the original Sanskrit. I'm afraid that your attempts to pick isolated quotes out of context while ignoring everything contrary to your position, will not be successful in convincing me of anything.

There is an important lesson to be learned here, which is why I even jumped into this debate in the first place. The lesson is that people who arrogantly presume to classify/withdraw classification of Vaishnavas as Hindus (for example):

"Santana dharma (Hindus) will always accept them they worship the same God Hindus have done since time in memorial but Iskcon only calls themselves Hindu when it suits them other times they make fun of them"

...almost invariably don't know what they are talking about. "Hinduism" is often used by many people to refer to Sanaatana-dharma, but in fact many who use the term refer to a "religion" or "way of life" where one can believe whatever he wants rather than be loyal to the conclusions of shaastra. Such an example is demonstrated right here. This fellow who signs as "Jai shree Krishna" just puts forward all kinds of opinions which he claims to be based on shaastra, but rejects all evidence from the very same shaastras which contradict his position.

Vaishnavas will continue to regard themselves as followers of Sanaatana-dharma, and continue to offer respects to Lord Shiva as a great devata and a servant of Vishnu. Vaishnavas need not be concerned that some ignorant people with no shaastric knowledge consider them Hindus or do not consider them Hindus.

- K

Hinduism

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

krishna_s

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Gauracandra

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Govindaram

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment