rudraksha Posted August 29, 2003 Report Share Posted August 29, 2003 i suggest the vaishnavas actually do some research on the different traditions of india before they just right out deny them and say their untrue...... that is totally biased geez.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I_love_krishna_ Posted August 29, 2003 Report Share Posted August 29, 2003 You see in the above posts you have said that Shiva is the supreme. You are absolutely right.. But don't you see we are worshipping Shiva himself. Even though you think we are worshipping the "Solar GodVishnu". We are Worshipping Brahman in both manifest and unmanifest forms. Brahman= the one which exists everywhere. Vishnu(direct translation)= one that prevades everything . In other words, Vishnu means the one that exists in all. Or Antharyamin. Vishnu thus = the formless brahman and shiva. All we are doing is worshipping the same shiva that you are worshipping except in a different state which is considered to be superior to all states of worship. In reality, we are worshipping the same brahman. In the Vishnu Sahasranama it clearly says "shivaya vishnurupaya" that means shiva is also Vishnu, so if shiva is Vishnu why can't we say Vishnu is shiva... If your real name is S____ but you are the rudrasha poster here. Can't we say that you rudrasha= S____ then why can't we say S____= Rudrasha poster? We can and it does make sense. Thus, we can conclude that we are worshipping the same brahman but in a different taste. That is all... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 30, 2003 Report Share Posted August 30, 2003 i have given the sources, did i not say the shaiva puranas? What you specifically said was: "the Vedas support krsna being devoted to shiva actually, and shiva being the supreme," Now it appears you are backing down from that position. It is not in the Vedas, but rather in Shaiva Puranas. they extoll shiva as supreme, it is one of the largest religous traditions in the world, All of which is besides the point. The point is which position is representative of the Vedas. u have only looked in vaishnava texts, [sigh] Another one of these "I'm smarter/more learned than than you" types... If only it were not just an empty boast. : Sveshvatara Upanishad is an easy access text.... Shvetaashvatara Upanishad is not a "Shaivite" text. I've actually read it in its entirety. Although it refers to the Supreme Purusha as "Shiva,Shambhu,Rudra," and "Maheshvara," (epithets traditionally considered to refer to Lord Shiva, husband of Paarvatii) these names are also names of Vishnu and in this context must be interpreted as references to Him. Why? Because that same Shvetaashvatara Upanishad states that this Supreme Purusha is the one from whom Brahmaa was born, and who instructed him in Vedic knowledge. yo devaanaaM prabhavashchodbhavashcha vishvaadhipo rudro maharshhiH | hiraNyagarbha.n janayaamaasa puurva.n sa no buddhyaa shubhayaa sa.nyunaktu || 3.4 || He, the creator and supporter of the gods, Rudra, the great seer, the lord of all, he who formerly gave birth to Hiranyagarbha, (shvetaashvatara upaniShad 3.4) yo brahmaaNa.n vidadhaati puurva.n yo vai vedaa.nshcha prahiNoti tasmai | ta.n ha devaM aatmabuddhiprakaashaM mumuxurvai sharaNamahaM prapadye || 6.18 || Seeking for freedom I go for refuge to that God who is the light of his own tboughts, he who first creates Brahma and delivers the Vedas to him; (shvetaashvatara upaniShad 6.18) Context is important. Scholarship does not consist of pulling isolated verses out of context. The person referred to above can only be Vishnu. Everyone knows that Lord Brahmaa was born from the naval of Lord Vishnu, and that Brahmaa heard Vedas from Vishnu. Lord Shiva is not known to be the guru of Brahmaa or the father of Brahmaa. Hence, the idea that Shvetaashvatara Upanishad refers to Lord Shiva and not Vishnu is wrong. www.shaivam.org and urday.com to read different puranas... Thanks for the reference. I will make sure to bookmark them. Now, since it appears that you accept Puraanas as evidence, would you like to know what they say about the origins of Shaivism? I mean, I'm sure you wouldn't want us to believe that you *only* accept the Puraanas which support your position. The following are from Padma Puraana, one of the Puraanas referenced at the above websites. The conversation takes place between Paarvatii and Lord Shiva. Lord Shiva explains about the various taamaasic religions, and he states that among these, he promoted one of them - the Shaivite religion. paarvatyuvaacha taamasaanichashaastraaNisamaachakShvamamaanagha sa.mproktaanichatairvviprairbhagavadbhaktivarjitaiH teShaa.nnaamaanikramashaHsamaachakShvasureshvara || Pa Pur 6.236.1 || Paarvatii said: O sinless one, tell me about the vicious texts which were composed by the braahmanas bereft of devotion to the Lord. O lord of gods, tell me their names in a sequence. (padma puraaNa, uttara-khaNDa, 236.1) rudra uvaacha shruNuudevipravakShyaamitaamasaaniyathaakramam || Pa Pur 6.236.2 || teShaa.msmaraNamaatreNamohaHsyaajj~naaninaamapi prathama.mhimayaivokta.mshaivaMpaashupataadikam || Pa Pur 6.236.3 || machchhattyaaveshitairvvipraiHproktaanichatataHshruNuu kaNaadenatusa.mprokta.mshaastra.mvaishoShika.mmahat || Pa Pur 6.236.4 || Rudra said: O goddess, listen. I shall tell you about the vicious texts in a sequence. By merely remembering them even the wise ones would be deluded. First I myself proclaimed the Shaiva, Paasupata (texts) etc. Hear about the ones which were proclaimed by the braahmanas into whom my power had entered, after that: Kanaada proclaimed the great Vasheshika text. (padma puraaNa, uttara-khaNDa, 236.2-4) Please note that these translations are done by a non-Vaishnava. But still if you doubt them, feel free to consul the original Sanskrit. The above quotes are from the edition published by Nag Publishers. They clearly state that Shaivism is one of the false doctrines promoted in Kali Yuga and which will delude even the wise. in vedas vishnu is just a minor solar god, nothing much there, That is just plain false. The Rig Veda Samhitaa 1.22.20 itself states: tad viSNoH paramaM padaM sadA pashyanti sUrayaH divIva cakSurAtatam | tad viprAso vipanyavo jAgRvAMsaH samindhate viSNoryat paramaM padam || RV 1.22.20 || This indicates that the seers ever behold the SUPREME ABODE (paramam padam) of Lord Vishnu. This is from Rig Veda Samhitaa 1.22.20. all the devas in Veda extoll the formless Brahman, which is Shiva. So on one hand he is formless, and yet he is Shiva? Perhaps you should decide what it is you think the Vedas extoll, and back it up with explicit evidence before you continue to contradict yourself. Vishnu has form and so is limited, Since when does having form imply limitation? YOu are speaking in nonsequiturs. he did not know the nature of God in the beginning and neither did brahma. Are you planning to back this up with evidence? Let's see it - original Sanskrit plus chapter and verse - all from the shruti. Rudra is just a form of the Supreme Shiva, thats why its confusing in stories....God is highest and therefore should be honored as the most transcendant beyond form. hard to grasp isnt it Mostly it's your philosophy that's hard to grasp. Shiva is supreme, then formless Brahman is supreme. But even though you can't make up your mind, you seem to be sure that Vishnu isn't supreme, even though the Rig Veda says otherwise. Not only Rig Veda, but other shrutis also agree with Vishnu's paramount position. The Aitareya Braahmana 1.1.1 (part of Rig Veda) says agnirvai devaanamavamo viShNuH paramaH (among devatas Agni is lowest and Vishnu is highest). Similarly, the Naaraayana Upanishad (also part of Rig Veda) indicates that from Vishnu, Shiva is born: 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). I think Vedic position on Vishnu vis-a-vis Shiva is clear. regards, K Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudraksha Posted August 30, 2003 Report Share Posted August 30, 2003 i refuse to post due to your crazy ignorance on the subject, u clearly have no idea what Shiva is, if u would have read more clearly, Formless Brahman IS Shiva, Rudra is the eternal form from the eternal Formless, they are ONE and the same.....and so is Mother Shakti, she is ultimately one with Para Shiva.... clearly there is no reason to argue with fanatic hare krishnas, i thank u for your post i_love_krishna i agree with u but not this guy.... i do not believe in the padma purana or any text that seeks to downgrade my philosophy or God, if thats so wrong than u can have me shot if u dont like it.....i simply believe from my personal search and evidence that SHIVA is supreme and is beyond form as my saints have said, u simply believe the other way around, okkkk? end of story...... Vaishnavism is strictly an Aryan religion as is Vedanta, there are pretty new actually. the Dravidians and Indus Valley Civilization have been proven to exist before all this, and there is only evidence of Shiva-Shakti images, who were also known in different parts of the world as the ancient horned god/mother goddess of the moon, etc......where was vishnu worship in those times? why no evidence? /images/graemlins/wink.gif Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I_love_krishna_ Posted August 30, 2003 Report Share Posted August 30, 2003 People who are trying to prove that one God is superior to another... as if there are different people are fools. Thank you. I am sorry if I have offended any one here, but thats the way I feel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livingentity Posted August 30, 2003 Report Share Posted August 30, 2003 People who are trying to prove that one God is superior to another... as if there are different people are fools. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I_love_krishna_ Posted August 30, 2003 Report Share Posted August 30, 2003 I am talking about anyone who thinks that krishna, Vishnu and Shiva , God... are different people . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anadi Posted August 30, 2003 Report Share Posted August 30, 2003 Vishnu Siva and the vaiSnavas:here! http://www.audarya-fellowship.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=hinduism&Number=42589&page=&view=&sb=&o=&fpart=1&vc=1 jaya rAma jaya RAma jaYa jaya RAma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 30, 2003 Report Share Posted August 30, 2003 Well, Rudraksha, it was you who claimed that the Vedas made Shiva to be the Supreme and not Vishnu. When I pointed out what the Vedas actually said, you responded with a temper tantrum. You aren't fanatical for saying Shiva is supreme and not Vishnu. But I am fanatical for saying the opposite, even though I gave explicit evidence to back my view and you did not. It seems your real problem is that you don't know what you consider to be authority. You will only quote something if it agrees with your own personal philosophy. And when someone disagrees with you, you just lash out at him. Now, that to me is the behavior of a fanatic. And as far as the chap who claims that that there is something wrong with those who discuss the supremacy of Vishnu over others deities. Well, let's see now. In that long list of people we have such great stalwart scholars and devotees as Madhva, Raamaanuja, Chaitanya, Baladeva, A.C Bhaktivedanta Swami, and many, many more. Am I going to listen to these great devotees who mastered their senses and who practiced what they preached, or am I going to listen to some junk punk high school teeny bopper who flirts with girls and probably watches Bollywood movies? Hmmmm, now that's a tough choice.... Anyway, someone who can't see the difference between Ramakrishna, Vivekananda, and A.C. Bhaktivedanta is certainly not gifted with enough discrimination to preach to anyone else about religion. Maybe our good friend should simply go back to watching Madhuri Dixit movies, since that is the extent of religious understanding that his conditioned mind will allow. As for me, I will continue to state my opinions with full reference to Vedas, Puraanas, Giitaa, etc. I don't agree with your double standard wherein it is okay to declare supremacy of your chosen deity with no regard to evidence, while anyone else who does the same with regards to his Deity is regarded by you as a "fanatic." Now, since both of you chaps will want to console each other and go on and on about what an unreasonable person I am, feel free to pull out your flamethrowers and do so. I will prefer to debate with intelligent, reasonable, and honest persons. So pardon if I do not dignify any of your further comments with a response. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I_love_krishna_ Posted August 31, 2003 Report Share Posted August 31, 2003 "As for me, I will continue to state my opinions with full reference to Vedas, Puraanas, Giitaa, etc. I don't agree with your double standard wherein it is okay to declare supremacy of your chosen deity with no regard to evidence, while anyone else who does the same with regards to his Deity is regarded by you as a "fanatic." Now, since both of you chaps will want to console each other and go on and on about what an unreasonable person I am, feel free to pull out your flamethrowers and do so. I will prefer to debate with intelligent, reasonable, and honest persons. So pardon if I do not dignify any of your further comments with a response." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudraksha Posted August 31, 2003 Report Share Posted August 31, 2003 the simple fact is that some scripture glorifies shiva, some shakti, some vishnu, and others may even glorify ganesha, skanda, lakshmi, jesus, jehovah, allah, and so on... a vaishnava devotee of the madhva school would also heavily disagree with the gaudiyas about krishna's supremacy over his other forms..... just as i am doing, and u are doing, when devotionalism becomes the top priority, and the utmost path to God, one must understand, decide, and realize who and what they see as the Supreme. There is both evidence for many deities being supreme from the goddess Diana to the deity of Mithra. should we simply ignore these truths and say we know the truth blindly? the reason i worship and glorify Shiva is because of what my saints experienced, their lives, their history, and their doctrine speak to me beyond what any other religion/philosophy has ever done..... read about shaiva siddhanta and how it was revived, u'll like it, at least consider studying some, it wouldnt hurt would it? and so with my philosophy i study the scriptures, just as with your philosophy of chaitanya u study the scriptures, we'll both agree on some things while disagreeing with others, such as the nature of God....I do believe wholeheartedly in the Shiva Purana and Shiva Stotras like Mahimna, Ravana, etc....the Thirumular is the purana of devotional hymns, while the Periya Purana is the purana of shaiva saints lifetime, we hold these even higher than Vedas, or any other text for that matter, so in a sense, u didnt look into why i believe the way i do, or any other reason, u just thought i followed Vedas, i can see Shiva as supreme in Vedas but u cannot, u see Vishnu...... the devotees on each side argue too much, but if we dont learn from each side, it'll just get worse. U may not believe this but i started out as a hare krishna, very very devoted too......as i studied more i found other sides to hindu culture, why were there other devotees like for goddess shakti? and shiva? and it attracted me alot more than the stern vaisnava culture, its alot different for shaivas, we feel happy about our material blessings from the lord, they are our blessings, and knowing that we can still be attached to God through knowing those are our blessings...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudraksha Posted August 31, 2003 Report Share Posted August 31, 2003 i think the most important reason why i left vaishnavism was the way they make it seem as if our material blessings are evil, and we should do away with them, it just didnt seem like a loving enough faith for me, the vishnu i know is not like that, and i consider him one of the highest deities and worship him in that way. thats why when i found shiva i gladly found the lord of love i was looking for, he never made me ashamed of anything i had, or what i was attached to, as long as it wasnt a bad thing, and he blessed me incomparibly, i have a wonderful lifestyle now, i was severly depressed, hurt, abandoned, and messed up before........... He showed me personally He was the supreme in a loving way, the shaiva saints brought back the comfort of life and God back into Hinduism, u cant find that very easily in the various sects, not at all......it puts alot of pressure on us to devout too intensely, sooner or later it gets to us and we lose faith and drop out from the love of our deity. With my path i can devout as much as i need to, especially on the holy days like shiva ratri, and always know the lord is there to bless and save me.......for is it not loving the lord rather than ritualistic performance that counts the most??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudraksha Posted August 31, 2003 Report Share Posted August 31, 2003 worshiping maybe 3-5 times a day, saying prayers, chanting, playing devotional music, actually having FUN with devotion will teach true love of God, not vigorous days of nonstop chanting, man that was hard on my faith, why would any deity choose to depress their followers thats just wrong..... Shiva is pleased no matter how u come to him or how much u devote as long as the love is pure, and will bless u unimaginably, and in the end u shall reach the eternal loving abode within Shiva's light : ) at first i thought this site was for all hindus, guess not though : ( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Govindaram Posted August 31, 2003 Report Share Posted August 31, 2003 Hare Krishna The only problem comes when Lord Siva devotees say he is best, and Lord Krsna devotees say he is best, THEY BOTH ARE!!!! I have no idea about this, so please forgive me for offences: Won't Krishna be pleased if His devotee is being worshipped, even if the particular devotee, has a view that Lord Siva is supreme.. Will Lord Siva be pleased that the particular devotee, has a view that he (lord Siva) is greater than Krsna? Ok, so lets say Lord Siva is greater than Krsna, he is supreme(Lord Siva), then what position is Krsna in NOW??? Is Krsna Now a servant of Lord Siva (I'm taking about Krsna for now and Not Lord Visnu (2 handed form and 4 handed from) These are some of the questions which have been bugging me, I'm expected maybe quotes from Siva purana etc, but I don't know?????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 31, 2003 Report Share Posted August 31, 2003 The problem occurred here when one individual claimed that, according to Vedas, Vishnu is a devotee of Shiva and Shiva is supreme. I simply showed with reference to Vedas that this was not so while politely challenging him to demonstrate otherwise. And that's when, intolerant and fanatical as he is, he proceeded to throw temper tantrums. It is abundantly clear that this individual had an agenda. He posted his Shiva propaganda with the express purpose of waiting for someone to object, so that regardless of how reasonable that objection would be, he could get up on his soapbox and villify that person and hence the whole Vaishnava viewpoint. The thing is, he obviously did not count on someone knowing those scriptures better than he did (which isn't saying much, as I regard my own knowledge as quite meager, but sadly there are those like him who know even less). This is a common ploy by individuals who are envious of Vaishnavas. They wait for some Vaishnava to come along and speak truth, then they try to paint him as a fanatic to bolster their own confidence and satisfy their own inferiority complex vis-a-vis Vaishnavas. Why do they feel like that? Because they often criticize Vaishnavas for following regulative principles which they themselves do not follow. They may even seem very proud of the fact that they don't follow regulations. But deep down inside they are conscious of their failure to maintain dharma. So they go and lash out at anyone who is still trying to do it. But all of this is still besides the point. Vishnu is the Supreme Deity, pure and simple. This is maintained by all scriptures, even the so-called "Shaivite" Puraanas. Whatever is found in Puraanas, if it contradicts shruti, must be interpreted in light of what is said by shruti and not vice-versa. And shrutis are very clear on Vishnu's supremacy, as quoted earlier. Shiva's supremacy is relative to Vishnu. Since he is not a jiiva, he is, from the perspective of a conditioned living entity, almost akin to God Himself. This is why the Brahmaa-samhitaa compares Shiva and Vishnu to yogurt and milk. Yogurt and milk are of similar quality, but they are not the same. Thus, saying they are exactly the same is wrong - for two things to be exactly the same they must have all identical properties and this is not the case for Shiva and Vishnu. Please see for example, Srila Prabhupada's purport to Bhagavad-gita 7.4: The words maam eva are also significant. Maam means unto Krishna (Vishnu) only, and not Brahmaa or Shiva. Although Brahmaa and Shiva are greatly elevated and are almost on the level of Vishnu, it is not possible for such incarnations of raajo-guNa (passion) and tamo-guNa (ignorance) to release the conditioned soul from the clutches of maayaa. In other words, both Brahmaa and Shiva are also under the influence of maayaa. Only Vishnu is the master of maayaa; therefore He can alone give release to the conditioned soul. The Vedas confirm this in the phrase tvam eva viditvaa or "Freedom is possible only by understanding Krishna." Even Lord Shiva affirms that liberation can be achieved only by the mercy of Vishnu. Lord Shiva says: mukti-pradaataa sarveShaa.m viShNur eva na sa.mshayaH. "There is no doubt that Vishnu is the deliverer of liberation for everyone. As Vishnu never comes under maayaa, there is no question of Him being exactly the same as Shiva. But at the same time, Shiva is expanded from Mahaa-Vishnu and is not a jiiva. So there is some similarity too - he is greater than all other devatas including Lord Brahmaa! But Vishnu is still higher than him. Note that other Vaishnavas regard Shiva as a very elevated jiiva and consider many of the "Shaivite" references in the Puraanas to be interpolated. Only Gaudiiyas accept Shiva's "supremacy" but in a relative sense, thus explaining away many such references in the Puraanas without ignoring them, and also in such a way as to reconcile them harmoniously with the vast majority of other pramaanas indicating that Vishnu is supreme over Shiva. The Gaudiiya view is thus the most "liberal" one, if such a thing even makes sense. I simply like to think of it as the most correct one - the most sensible unifying theory is the one that explains the greatest body of evidence with the least number of assumptions. The Shaivite view, on the other hand, simply ignores all information presented on Vishnu's supremacy and arbitrarily arrogates authority to a few statements mostly in the taamaasic class of Puraanas. This is obviously not a very scholarly approach. Perhaps it is for this reason that Lord Shiva listed Shaivism as being one of the taamaasic doctrines of Kali Yuga (Padma Puraana - already quoted earlier). Anyway, those who love the truth feel bound to explain scripture. Those who ignore truth just pick and choose what they like without any objective standard upon which to base such selective reading. It's not our place to convince these people - only to speak the truth. And the truth remains that Shiva, despite being a very respectable and powerful devata, is still the servant of Lord Vishnu. Shiva himself says this: sattva.m vishuddha.m vasudevashbdita.m yadiiyate tatra pumaanapaavR^iTaH | sattve cha tasmin bhagavaan vaasudevo hyadhokShajo me namasaa vidhiiyate || bhaa 4.3.23 || I am always engaged in offering obeisances to Lord Vasudeva in pure Krsna consciousness. Krsna consciousness is always pure consciousness, in which the Supreme Personality of Godhead, known as Vasudeva, is revealed without any covering. (bhaagavata puraaNa 4.3.23) It isn't our business to contradict Lord Shiva's own position. We have no right to change the scriptures. Another comment I felt inclined to address - this Shaivite fanatic refered to me earlier as a 'Hare Krishna fanatic.' I'm not really sure what that means (most likely it was just intended to generate as much emotional hysteria and sympathy for his otherwise indefensible position), but just today on Vinaayaka Chaturthi I performed the puja of Lord Ganesha. This is a family tradition for us, something which we have done for many years even before we discovered our Vaishnava heritage, and will continue to do for many years to come. The difference of course, is that we worshipped Lord Ganesha as a servant of Vishnu, rather than as Supreme God on par with Vishnu. Was this a fanatical position on our part? Who knows. But I can't help but take note that we in our family who are Vaishnavas observe Lord Ganesha's birth much more attentively than many from so-called "Shaivite" families. Food for thought.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudraksha Posted September 1, 2003 Report Share Posted September 1, 2003 u are not much of a devotee of anything if u keep flaming someone u dont even know, i was trying to make amends but no, u have to keep on at it, i dont think krsna is very glad to have u as devotee, u make no sense whatsoever now u are saying i am un-knowledgeable (though i have been practicing all my life with various traditions and study all the time), not following dharma (i cant even attempt to be a bad example at life i'm anti-social for the most part and dont wish to take part in mundane things, spirituality is really the only thing i consider important, i follow alot more than only 4 prescribed principles! why is tolerance and humility not a prescribed principle?!) shiva purana does not extol shiva (lmao, the whole purana extolls the supremacy of shiva, clearly u have not read a single passage, vishnu is the divine child according to this purana), who are u then? what kind of authority do u have over any of this? u are not vishnu devotee or act anything like it, look how everyone else is here very tolerant and forgiving and can argue decently, and true to their lord, but u are different, there is something missing with u, its called purity, all gaudiyas must have purity before even becoming devotee or they are not worthy, and your lord wants u to be worthy so as not to fall back into material existence, and if u still think i was flaming u, u have much to learn about spiritul debate............. i have not even described much of my beliefs at all, and u judge me regardless, i grew up as a gaudiya so dont give me these lies gaudiyas dont act like this, i can become gaudiya again right now and u'd still say something back lol it seems to me u have a hate for other religions that dont agree with u, even if they respect u, u have no respect for them, i always tell vaishnavas i pray to lord vishnu, i have no problem with that, u have problem with people praying to lord shiva dont u, but why? just because we see him as supreme? do u think this is something new? these two gods have been worshiped since time immemorable! the growing eradication of shaivism is due to the overwhelming propaganda of vaishnavism all over the world, its become quite evangelistic nowadays, which is why most of the world has never known about the other more tolerant cultures in india sadly...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 1, 2003 Report Share Posted September 1, 2003 Sri Vakrathunda mahaakaaya kotisuryasamaprabha nirvighnam kurume deva subhakaryeshu sarvadaa I read your arguments loud and clear, when any one presents you with evidence of the oneness of Vishnu and Shiva, you due your tunnel vision, refute it because it does not fit in with your understanding. Instead of taking the statements on its face value you feel the need to qualify with another statement of yours. So I am going to call your bluff since you said Siva, rudra, Mahesh etc are also Vishnus names in that case you would not mind chanting these names, aloud, in your local temple and explain to people that this are Vishnus name Word of advice refrain from calling other devatas as servants what ever their position is in relation to the lord they are worthy of our worship. Unless you are at their level or above you have no right to call them servants simple example I can give is all government ministers are public servants but when we approach them for any reason we do not address them as servant do we? Jai Shree Krishna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 1, 2003 Report Share Posted September 1, 2003 Try reading the evidence for once.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 1, 2003 Report Share Posted September 1, 2003 Jai Ganesh it is very simple .Respect re Shvetaashvatara Upanishad . Although it refers to the Supreme Purusha as "Shiva,Shambhu,Rudra," and "Maheshvara," (epithets traditionally considered to refer to Lord Shiva, husband of Paarvatii) these names are also names of Vishnu . so are you going to chant these names or not? aum namo Shivaya etc re Try reading the evidence for once iread it and accept it. you read and dispute it. Jai Shree Krishna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 1, 2003 Report Share Posted September 1, 2003 We are seeing an increased friction between the Vaishnavas and the Shaivas on this forum. Obviously this is all the fault of the Vaishnavas, who as you know are wery fanatikal because they believe that only Vishnu is the Supreme God. They are such jealous people because they believe that there can be only one supreme God. Such fanatics! They should accept the enlightened wiew that Shiva is supreme God. But they say that Wishnu is supreme God. This is fanatickism! We Hindoos must band together and fight this dangerous idea! So what follows here is an algorithm to help the enlightened Shaivite people to teach these foolish Waishnawite Hindoos the trooth. Algorithm follows: --------- START You say Shiva is Supreme God and Vishnu is not Supreme God IF Fanatik Vaishnavite asks why this is so, ...THEN Explain to Fanatik Vaishnavite that Shiva is Supreme God, because it is so obvious, everyone knows it, etc. ...ELSE GOTO END#1 IF Fanatik Vaishnavite understands and accepts this mahA-brahma-tarka [great transcendental logic] and accepts you as an enlightened soul, GOTO END#1 OR IF Fanatik Vaishnavite repeats request as to why you think Shiva is Supreme God... ... THEN Explain to Fanatik Vaishnavite that Shiva is Supreme God because Vedas say so IF Fanatik Vaishnavite understands, bows before you and admits his mahA-pApam in doubting you, THEN GOTO END#1 OR IF Fanatik Vaishnavite asks you where in Vedas Shiva is said to be Supreme... ...THEN Explain to Fanatik Vaishnavite that Shiva is Supreme because Shaivite Puranas say so. IF Fanatik Vaishnavite again asks why you previously said Shiva is supreme in Vedas when you now are saying Shiva is supreme only because of Shaiva Purana ...THEN Explain to Fanatik Vaishnavite that yes, you said Shiva is supreme in Vedas and you meant it, but he is only supreme in Vedas as long as no one asks where that is, so just nevermind, shutup about it, and accept the Shaiva PurAna. ...ELSE GOTO END#1 IF Fanatik Vaishnavite is unsatisifed, and asks you again to quote where in Vedas it says that Shiva is supreme and not Vishnu, ....THEN tell Fanatik Vaishnavite that Vishnu is not supreme because in Vedas he is only minor solar deity. Laugh at Fanatik Vaishnavite for his stoopidity. ....ELSE GOTO END#1 IF Fanatik Vaishnavite quotes "oM tad viShNoH paramaM padaM sadA pashyanti sUrayaH" (Rig Veda 1.22.20) which says Vishnu is Supreme and not a minor solar deity... ...THEN cover your ears, close your eyes, chant "Shiva Shiva" three times, ignore whatever he said, and again repeat that in Vedas only Shiva is supreme and not Vishnu, who is only minor solar deity in Vedas [except for everywhere in the Vedas where this is not said]. ...ELSE GOTO END#1 IF you open your eyes and Fanatik Vaishnavite is still there, asking why you think Shiva is supreme in Vedas when you have not shown where this is so.... ...THEN tell Fanatik Vaishnavite that Shiva is supreme because SvetAshvatara UpaniShad says so. Feel very proud of yourself that you can say "upaniShad." Now Fanatik Vaishnavite will think you are very smart. ...ELSE GOTO END#1 IF Fanatik Vaishnavite points out that he also knows this Upanishad, and that the person glorified in it is actually Vishnu, because some of Shiva's names are also names of Vishnu, and because the God in that Upanishad is described as the creator of BrahmA [and thus he can only be Vishnu].... ...THEN get very angry, ignore everything Fanatik Vaishnavite said [after all, he is a Fanatik] and just say that other Upanishads make Shiva supreme God. ...ELSE GOTO END#1 IF Fanatik Vaishnavite quotes other Upanishads which show that Vishnu is Supreme God and creator of Shiva.... ...THEN again become very angry, accuse dumb Vaishnavite of Fanatickism, and explain to dumb Vaishnavite that obviously Shiva is supreme in Vedas and Upanishads, because the PurAnas prove it. ...ELSE GOTO END#1 IF Fanatik Vaishnavite quotes some PurAna showing that Vishnu is higher than Shiva ...THEN explain to Fanatik Vaishnavite that when you said said "PurAnas prove Shiva to be supreme God," you did not mean all PurAnas but only those PurAnas which say that Shiva is supreme God. Point out to dumb Vaishnavite that this is great logical argument, and he can't accept it because he is so dumb and fanatikal. ...ELSE GOTO END#1 IF Fanatik Vaishnavite still cannot accept this greatly intelligent response because he is so dumb... ...THEN Explain to Fanatik Vaishnavite that it is ok, Shiva is supreme, and Vishnu is also supreme, they are both supreme because they are both one. So U can worship whoever you want. Now pat yourself on back that U are so smart and tolerant and accepting, unlike dumb Fanatik Vaishnavite. ...ELSE GOTO END#1 LET STRAWMAN = irrelevant argument intended to divert flow of discussion from your own inconsistency IF Fanatik Vaishnavite asks why you now say Vishnu is also supreme, when before you said he is only minor solar deity... ... THEN STRAWMAN ... ELSE GOTO END #1 IF Fanatik Vaishnavite asks you to stop changing subject and answer his questions.... ... REPEAT STRAWMAN ... ELSE GOTO END #1 IF Fanatik Vaishnavite still believes in foolish idea that Vishnu is Supreme God.... ... THEN GOTO START ... ELSE GOTO END#1 END#1: Fanatik Vaishnavite has accepted great logical arguments that Shiva is Supreme God. Congratulate Fanatik Vaishnavite on his enlightenment and explain to him now he can do whatever he wants, he is no longer Fanatikal. There is some hope for this poor dumb Vaishnavite after all. END#2: [deliberately left out of algorithm. after all, how can we lost an argument to a Fanatik?] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livingentity Posted September 1, 2003 Report Share Posted September 1, 2003 up the word fanatic in the dictionary and then look in the mirror. This is all the time I am going to waste on you as I am certain I know who you are. This is the style of a certain extremely prejudice person on this forum. Best to be ignored from this moment on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Govindaram Posted September 1, 2003 Report Share Posted September 1, 2003 Typos: /images/graemlins/laugh.gif We are seeing an increased friction between the Vaishnavas and the Shaivas on this forum. Obviously this is all the fault of the Vaishnavas, who as you know are wery /images/graemlins/smirk.gif fanatikal /images/graemlins/smirk.gif because they believe that only Vishnu is the Supreme God. They are such jealous people because they believe that there can be only one supreme God. Such fanatics! They should accept the enlightened wiew /images/graemlins/smirk.gif that Shiva is supreme God. But they say that Wishnu is supreme God. This is fanatickism! /images/graemlins/smirk.gif We Hindoos /images/graemlins/smirk.gif must band together and fight this dangerous idea! So what follows here is an algorithm to help the enlightened Shaivite people to teach these foolish Waishnawite Hindoos /images/graemlins/smirk.gif the trooth. /images/graemlins/grin.gif Guest you cannot really be a Shaivite, you have no idea what you're talking about, Jai Bhola-nath & Hare Krishna! Also whenever I see/think of Lord Siva I think of Krishna. ------- <font color="red"> nitai-gauranga, nitai-gauranga </font color> <font color="red"> jayasacinandana, gaura-hari </font color> <font color="blue"> All glories to Lord Nityananda and Lord Caitanya! </font color> <font color="blue"> the son of Saci-devi, who is Krsna Himself in golden hue. </font color> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livingentity Posted September 1, 2003 Report Share Posted September 1, 2003 fanatikal sea ownlie there cide az trooth. Luk en merrow, pleeaze. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 2, 2003 Report Share Posted September 2, 2003 This is all the time I am going to waste on you as I am certain I know who you are. This is the style of a certain extremely prejudice person on this forum. who do you think he is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudraksha Posted September 2, 2003 Report Share Posted September 2, 2003 i dont worship forms as supreme, vishnu is a form, the para brahman is formless.....its the same Brahman extolled by Vedas and Upanishads that the Advaitists revere only theyre more impersonalist, but i view the Transcendant lord and lady as One Whole Pure Consciousness, the lord and lady are its direct manifestations......the Brahman is Encompassing all, it is Pure Omnipresent Consciousness......that is a big difference in philosophy compared to limited form in the heavens is it not? Formless Brahman is the philosophy in Upanishads and Vedas is it not? most hindus revere this philosophical position over the others, whether they are shaivite or not! so is majority wrong? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.