Some demigods and goddesses scare me

[krishnadasa]

 

You have heard many devotees say that "please stop sleeping on the the lap of the witch called maya" Now isnt that offensive as Maya is also Durga devi.

 

In any case, Durga or Kali scares me. I mean i chant and i am not in fear of her because "rakhe krsna mare ke, mare krsna rakhe keIf krsna wants to protect you nobody can harm you, if krsna wants to kill you nobody can harm you"

 

So what i mean is, her whole persona and such scares me.

 

Oh and I had once an interesting encounter with a crazy(now i know not all durga or kali worshipers are crazy) durga or kali worshiper once on broad daylight during books which I will tell you later. Just say Jai Narshimadev.

 

Anyways thats my story.

 

Please clarify.

 

harekrsna

Haridham

 

how can mother Durga can scare you i wonder, she looks so beutiful sitting on a tiger with vareity of weapons in her hands...

 

hari hari bol

[krishnadasa]

 

About 99% of Hindus in India have not read anything from Vedas or sastras and yet think they know better than others.

 

In gita Shri Krishna clearly states that none is equal to HIM and none is above HIM. Scripturally all your claims are FALSE and are merely your ignorant emotional rants.

 

Bhagavad Gita:

 

O Arjuna, even those devotees who worship demigods with faith, they too worship Me, but in an improper way(i.e. not in the prescribed way). (9.23)

 

 

Because I alone am the enjoyer of all Yajna, and the Lord. But, people do not know My true transcendental nature. Therefore, they fall (into the repeated cycles of birth and death). (9.24)

 

Vedas are also very clear as to who is the Lord. Lord Visnu is declared the Supreme and above all other Devatas including, Lakshmi Devi, Lord BrahmA, Lord Shiva, Parvati Devi etc. who are given in the order of superiority from highest to lowest. Lakshmi Devi is highest, followed by BrahmA, Saraswati Devi, Rudra or Shiva, parvati Devi in that order.

 

Even Lakshmi Devi cannot be compared Lord Narayana.

 

Question about Lord Ram allegedly worshipping Lord Shiva:

 

Please do a reading of scriptures rather than arguing by seeing some TV serials and movies. Knowing religion involves studying carefully.

 

http://www.dvaita.org/list/list_50/msg00078.html

Public Uername and password: dvaita

 

Padma purana says:

 

ahamapyavatAreShu tvAM cha rudra mahAbala |

tAmasAnAM mohanArthaM pUjayAmi yuge yuge ||

 

in the 'tAraka-brahma-rAja-samhitA', Vishnu says that he would,

for the sake of deluding the tAmasAs, worship Rudra in his

avatArAs and people will be deluded by such an adhArmic act.Shiva seeks:

 

anyadevaM varaM dehi prasiddhaM sarvajantuShu |

martyo bhUtvA bhavAneva mama sAdhaya keshava ||

mAM bhajasva cha devesha varaM matto gR^ihANa cha |

yenA.ahaM sarvabhUtAnAM pUjyAtpUjyataro.abhavam.h ||

 

Vishnu says:

devakAryAvatAreShu mAnuShatvamupeyivAn.h |

tvAmevArAdhayiShyAmi mama tvaM varado bhava ||

 

in the Rudra-gItA section of the varAha purANa (and a similar

incident in the kUrma purANa) narrate Shiva's obtaining the

boon of being worshipped by the Lord in his incarnations.

Thus, just like the Lord granted the boon of being the

charioteer to Arjuna, here too, his bestowing such a boon

should be seen as an indication of His easy accessibility to

his devotees (Ashrita-saulabhya-pradarshAnarthatvena) and not

as a hindrance to his being the parameshvara.

 

agreed~¬¬¬Thanks to brits however

 

hari hari bol

[Guest guest]

 

About 99% of Hindus in India have not read anything from Vedas or sastras and yet think they know better than others.

How do YOU know that? Have you met 99% of all Hindus? How come Smarty?

 

 

In gita Shri Krishna clearly states that none is equal to HIM and none is above HIM. Scripturally all your claims are FALSE and are merely your ignorant emotional rants.

ahh.. you are so emotional! The same Krishna after giving the knowledge of BhagwadGita and finishing that war, tell how he he became so. And how he worshipped Mahadeva! You didn't read that? lol

Bhagavad Gita:

 

O Arjuna, even those devotees who worship demigods with faith, they too worship Me, but in an improper way(i.e. not in the prescribed way). (9.23)

 

Because I alone am the enjoyer of all Yajna, and the Lord. But, people do not know My true transcendental nature. Therefore, they fall (into the repeated cycles of birth and death). (9.24)

Vedas are also very clear as to who is the Lord. Lord Visnu is declared the Supreme and above all other Devatas including, Lakshmi Devi, Lord BrahmA, Parvati Devi etc. who are given in the order of superiority from highest to lowest. Lakshmi Devi is highest, followed by BrahmA, Saraswati Devi, Rudra or Shiva, parvati Devi in that order.

Oh really? Is that all Vedas say about Rudra? False. Read elsewhere for the glories of Mahadeva Shiva.

 

 

Even Lakshmi Devi cannot be compared Lord Narayana.

Why do you keep comparing and fighting??? That is so so judegemental and low.

You may think so about Shri Shri Laksmi Devi, but She is the energy of Lord Vishnu and without her He can do nothing!!

 

 

Question about Lord Ram allegedly worshipping Lord Shiva:

Please do a reading of scriptures rather than arguing by seeing some TV serials and movies. Knowing religion involves studying carefully.

Yes it does indeed. And you have to do that. Since the urls u gave below are not providing enough information or not in teh right manner or light. There is more than enough evidence of Rama worshipping Lord Shiva. All of India knows this. Not we don't have to know this from some from US. Its like a joke that you are turning our culture into.

 

 

Padma purana says:

 

ahamapyavatAreShu tvAM cha rudra mahAbala |

tAmasAnAM mohanArthaM pUjayAmi yuge yuge ||

 

in the 'tAraka-brahma-rAja-samhitA', Vishnu says that he would,

for the sake of deluding the tAmasAs, worship Rudra in his

avatArAs and people will be deluded by such an adhArmic act.Shiva seeks:

 

anyadevaM varaM dehi prasiddhaM sarvajantuShu |

martyo bhUtvA bhavAneva mama sAdhaya keshava ||

mAM bhajasva cha devesha varaM matto gR^ihANa cha |

yenA.ahaM sarvabhUtAnAM pUjyAtpUjyataro.abhavam.h ||

 

Yea well why don't you quote the part of the same Padma Purana that is Shiva Gita??? Because it says something else? Arent you being a hypocrite?

 

 

Vishnu says:

devakAryAvatAreShu mAnuShatvamupeyivAn.h |

tvAmevArAdhayiShyAmi mama tvaM varado bhava ||

 

in the Rudra-gItA section of the varAha purANa (and a similar

incident in the kUrma purANa) narrate Shiva's obtaining the

boon of being worshipped by the Lord in his incarnations.

Thus, just like the Lord granted the boon of being the

charioteer to Arjuna, here too, his bestowing such a boon

should be seen as an indication of His easy accessibility to

his devotees (Ashrita-saulabhya-pradarshAnarthatvena) and not

as a hindrance to his being the parameshvara.

 

Well there are far too many places than that where Rudra and Shiva gives the biggest of all boons to both Gods and people and demons alike. That's why he is Bhole Nath. The one who is easily pleased. Don't forget that Lord Vishnu/Hari got his Sudarshana Chakra from Lord Shiva as a boon.

[raghu]

 

ahh.. you are so emotional! The same Krishna after giving the knowledge of BhagwadGita and finishing that war, tell how he he became so. And how he worshipped Mahadeva! You didn't read that? lol

 

No he didn't read that, because it isn't there in the Gita.

 

As far as the rest of your message is concerned, you might want to try something a bit more novel, like responding to specific evidence with specific evidence. So far, whenever specific evidence is brought forward that contradicts your position, you just wave it off and allude to something else that is different.

 

It seems that the best you can do is assert that the scriptures are inconsistent. If they are inconsistent, I fail to see how that proves your position, and if your position is found on scriptural inconsistency, then any religious doctrine that is derived from them stands defeated, including yours.

[Guest guest]

 

No he didn't read that, because it isn't there in the Gita.

How does that matter Raghu ustaad? Gita is not just to be read either. It is to be understood. And to understand it, you have to get out of the Gaudiya well into the vast ocean of higher consciousness. Mere scriptural reading does not open the doors to higher consciousness nor does it bring about liberation or a fuller connection with the higher power. It just gives information. And even that you are not able to comprehend completely, because the books with particular translation and purports you talk about, are one sidededly presented in these purports. You may take up five shlokas from Gita and try to live your life upto them. See the result. And then say if you understand them. Not just by reading craming and quoting. Not copy paste. This is no realization. If you are getting proud by ctr+copy+paste, then let this be your achievement. I don't get impressed by this. But thanks for your effort. Hare krishna!

 

 

As far as the rest of your message is concerned, you might want to try something a bit more novel, like responding to specific evidence with specific evidence. So far, whenever specific evidence is brought forward that contradicts your position, you just wave it off and allude to something else that is different.

Your specific evidences have been pulvarized in the previous posts in other thread by more knowledgeable personalities. You want some more beating? lol. Hari Bol Duniya Gol!

[Guest guest]

 

How does that matter Raghu ustaad? Gita is not just to be read either. It is to be understood.

 

Blah, blah, blah blah....

 

[irrelevant banter deleted]

 

The point remains that Shiva worshipping Krishna is not in the Gita, contrary to your claims. No matter what sort of spin you put on how to understand scripture, it just isn't there, period.

 

And just FYI, I'm not a gaudiya.

 

 

Your specific evidences have been pulvarized in the previous posts in other thread by more knowledgeable personalities. You want some more beating? lol. Hari Bol Duniya Gol!

 

I have no idea what you are talking about. But I think the thesaurus needs more synonyms for the word "moron" so I can have something more sensible with which to respond to this sophmoric drivel.