Krishna/Narayana/Lord Siva

[Govindaram]

 

Haribol!

 

In a lecture by a Vaishnava.. he said that Narayana and Lord Siva are the same, is this true, I know Krishna has more qualities than Narayana & Lord Siva, so there is no issue there..Haribol!

 

 

[gokulkr]

Lord narayana is expansion of Lord krishna. both are one.

 

But lord shiva is a demigod. both are not equal. moreover , shiva is told as supreme only in "tamasic" puranas. but in satvic puranas, lord krsna/lord vishnu are supreme. so siva & vishnu not equal.

 

Following incident depicts how "Sri Vijayendra Tirtha" proves Shiva puransas as tamasic and "lord vishnu" as supreme.

------

Then one day, Sri Vijayîndra Tîrtha was in deep meditation. Suddenly, he saw Lord Vishnu and Srimad Acharya in his heart. At the same time, Sri Vyaasa Tîrtha appeared in front of Sri Vijayîndra Tîrtha and blessed him. Moments later, Sri Vijayîndra Tîrtha saw the divine mother sitting on a lion, having many weapons in her hand and having a pleasing face. It was the divine mother Sri Mangalambike in front of Sri Vijayîndra Tîrtha came to bless him. The divine mother blessed the saint, prophesizing that he would be victorious in the debate with Lingaraja. Sri Vijayîndra Tîrtha came to Kumbakonam and Sri Lingaraja came to know about it. Sri Vijayîndra Tîrtha and Lingaraja agree that the arguement be in the temple of Sri Kumbeswara. It was decided that if Lingaraja is defeated he has to stop forceful conversion of people into saivism and surrender all the property and management of the temples to Sri Vijayîndra Tîrtha. If Sri Vijayîndra Tîrtha is defeated, he would convert into a saivite and become a follower of Lingaraja. Lingaraja started the arguement by stateing that the Vedas have weakness and vedas were human composed . Sri Vijayîndra Tîrtha very easily criticised Lingaraja by giving many proofs which showed that Vedas are true and that vedas are not composed by any one(ApouruSheyaa). Vedas are known by three words namely 'Veda', 'Shruthi' and 'Drushthi'. Sri Vijayîndra Tîrtha explained the meaning of these words as follows: Veda meaning 'Vedyatha ithe vedaha' which means Vedas are the ones that are understood, Shruthi meaning 'Shrooyatha ithe Shruthihi' which means that Vedas are the ones that are being heard and Drushthi meaning 'Drushyatha ithe Drushtihi' which means that vedas are the ones that are seen. So, Vedas are the ones that are understood, heard and seen and it is not composed by any one. This way, Sri Vijayîndra Tîrtha proved his point that Vedas are 'ApouruSheyaa'.

Then came the topic who is supreme. Lingaraja with the help of Kourma, Lainga puranas started to state that Lord Shiva is the supreme and challenged Sri Vijayîndra Tîrtha how he can prove that Sri Naaraayana is supreme. Sri Vijayîndra Tîrtha said although it is mentioned that Lord Shiva is supreme in puranas like Lainga, Kourma etc., this point is against the Shrutis and Saathvika puranas and so it is not true. Also, puranas like Lainga,Shaiva etc., are thamasik. Lingaraja became furious and demanded how Sri Vijayîndra Tîrtha can prove that Lainga, Kourma puranas are Thamasik. Sri Vijayîndra Tîrtha gave proof by stateing that this division (Saathvik, Raajasik and Thaamasik) is done by Sri Veda Vyaasa himself who is the authority said as follows.

Vaishnavam Naaradeeyam Cha thatha Bhagavatham Shubham Garudam Cha thatha Paadmam Varaaham Shubha Darshane ShaDeThani Puranaani Saathvikaani Mathaani why Bramhaandam BrahmaVaivartham Maarkaandaiyam thathaiva cha BhavidhshyadhVaamanam Braamham Raajasaani Nibhodhamae Maathsyam Kourmam thatha Laingam Shaivam Skaandam Thathaiva cha AagnaeYam cha ShaDethani Thaamasa NirayaPradaha

which means that there are six puranas that are Saathvik. These puranas are Vishnu, Naarada, Bhaagavatha, Garuda, Padma and Varaaha. The Raajasik puranas are Bramhaanda, BramhaVaivartha, Maarkaandaeya, Bhavishyothara, Vaamana and Bramha. The six thamasik puranas are Maathsya, Kourma, Lainga, Skaanda, Shaiva and Aagnaeya.

Sri Vijayîndra Tîrtha also mentioned that the Smruthi Shaastras are of three kinds Saathvika, Raajasa and Thamasa. The judges got convinced about the proof given by Sri Vijayîndra Tîrtha and told Lingaraja that the proof has been given. The judges continued to state that since the debate was based on Shastras and only texts that can be believed are the Saatvika ones, so, as per the Shrutis and Saatvika Puranas, Sri Naaraayana is the Supreme (Sri Hari Sarvothamma) and Sri Vijayîndra Tîrtha is correct in this arguement.

Lingaraja now turned the point towards Lord Narasimha. He started telling that Lord Narasimha was defeated by Sri Veera Bhadra. Sri Vijayîndra Tîrtha criticized this by stateing that the information about Lord Narasimha being defeated by Lord Veera Bhadra is in Skaanda Puraana. Skaanda puraana is Thamasik and hence cannot be taken as a proof. Sri Vijayîndra Tîrtha very cleverly solved this point by quoteing that in Shaiva puraana, it is mentioned that Lord Rudra in the form of Sharabha defeats Lord Narasimha. But, in Skaanda puraana, it is mentioned that Lord Veera Bhadra defeats Lord Narasimha. So, who defeated Lord Narasimha? Is it Lord Rudra or Lord Veera Bhadra? If you say it is Lord Rudra then, it is against Shaiva puraana. If you say it is Lord Rudra then it is against Skaanda Puraana. Lingaraja's argument was based on the Thamasa puranas and Sri Vijayîndra Tîrtha created a suspision in Lingaraja's argument. Lingaraja became so confused and all the people who were watching the argument were amazed at the way Sri Vijayîndra Tiirtha disproved Lingaraja's point by creating this suspision. Sri Vijayîndra Tîrtha continued further and said that the authentic information is only in Saatvika puranas and since Lingaraja's point is based on Thamasik puranaas which is against various Shrutis, Smrutis and Saatvika puranas, it is a bluder to tell that Lord Narasimha was defeated by Lord Rudra or Lord Veera Bhadra. Sri Vijayîndra Tîrtha described Lord Narasimha as 'Narasimhasya KaeValam Jyothireka ManaaDyantam' which means that Lord Narasimha is Infinite and who has no destruction. For the one who is infinite and who is undestructable, how can it have an end? So, as mentioned in the Saatvika puranas, Lord Narasimha destroyed Sharabha. Sri Vijayîndra Tîrtha gave one more proof from a Shruthi as 'Harim Harantha Manuyanthi VishVasyeeShaanam VrushaBham Matheenaam' which means that Lord Rudra who is praised by 'Eeshaana' word was destroyed by Lord Hari(i.e. Lord Narasimha). Also, the Smruthi states that

BramhaanaMindram RudramCha Yamam Varunamaevacha| Nihasya Harathe YasmaaThasMyaaDharereHoochayathe||

Which means that Lord Bramha, Lord Indra, Lord Rudra, Lord Yama, Lord Varuna get destroyed by Lord Hari (i.e. Lord Narasimha) during the Pralaya period. This means that Lord Hari is the supreme(Sarvothamma), Lord Hari is the creator, Protector and destroyer of these worlds, Lord Hari is the ParaBramha as mentioned in the Vedas, Shrutis, Smrutis and Puraanas.

This way the argument went for many days, and everyday, Sri Vijayîndra Tîrtha turned out to be the winner and all the points that Lingaraja upheld were very easily turn down by Sri Vijayîndra Tîrtha. At last, Lingaraja became speechless and accepted the defeat by bowing his head.

Needless to say, the judges concluded that Sri Vijayîndra Tîrtha was won the argument

-----------

 

This proves everything.

 

 

[dhaa]

Who is the Vaishnava, what sampradaya is he in, what were his exact words?

[Govindaram]

 

Saw it on the above channel, not sure what sampradaya he is from, but I love to watch KC programmes on Tele, so I do!

 

I was kinda shocked by what he said, but maybe he was talking about sada-siva?

 

exact words were in Hindi but in english..

 

"Siva and Narayana are the same"

[Guest guest]

Sri VijayIndra tIrtha is known to most mAdhvas. He is the great soul who strove very hard to propagate madhva philosophy and its practices far and wide, and protect it from the onslaught of other doctrines. Blessed with a very keen and unique intellect he was the reservoir of many laudable traits and characteristics. He used his gifts to demonstrate to the world the supremeness of Lord Hari, and the greatness of Acharya Madhva and his philosophy.

 

 

 

Unable to tolerate the glory of Sri VijayIndra tIrtha some vile sorceror tried to harm him by poisoning the naivedya offered to Sri Mula rAma devaru. How can poison affect the Lord who is responsible for the creation, sustenance, maintenance and destruction of this entire universe? How could it affect such a great devotee of Rama like Sri VijayIndra tIrtha? Obviously not, but Sri VijayIndra tIrtha saw this differently. He saw this as an opportunity to demonstrate to the world the power and potency of the Narasimha mantra. Accordingly, he composed a unique stotra to Lord Narasimha consisting of several bIjAksharas (primordial syllables) and offered that with devotion to the Lord. The nectar that issued out from his devotion-soaked lips is the Sri ShoDashabAhu nrusimhAsTaka.

 

 

 

Anybody who chants this mantra daily with utmost devotion, while maintaining a clean and chaste body and mind, will be immune to all poisons. In addition, he will attain all his desires. Since the stotra contains several primordial syllables, it should not be chanted by ladies or by people who have not undergone brahmopadesha (upanayana). However, they can request other eligible people to recite the mantra on their behalf and thus benefit from it.

[A.Ravi sekhar]

Could you name the oldest temple of god vishnu,and when it built. and the same time could you please let me know the oldest temple of god shiva.

 

I dont understand what is supremacy in vaishnavam.Could you explain.

[coolrishu]

They are same............... one who differentiate in between "shiv-sakti" ,"shiva-vishu",and "guru-shiva " he is a fool, thus his mind always remain in circle which never ends............so dont think abt this, not even in dreams...

ELSE WE ALL ARE ALSO SAME NO CHOTA BADA (no inferior and superior)

[sambya]

 

In a lecture by a Vaishnava.. he said that Narayana and Lord Siva are the same .

 

I was kinda shocked by what he said, but maybe he was talking about sada-siva?

indeed , quite a horrifying incident !!!!

 

shiva and narayana same ?? NEVER !!!! im so scared that shiva might 'overtake' vishnu in popularity if such remarks go on to be preached.

 

lets work out a plan to bring B J P back to power in india so that they can pass a legislation and stop such sacrilegeous programmes on television .

 

just imagine the audacity of these channels !!! think of the condition of those helpless innocent veiwers who shall be mislead into worshipping shiva and pave their way to kumbhipaak hell.

 

just imagine !! shastras ( brely 200 years old ) have specifically stated that krishna is the supreme and yet some make these mistakes again and again .

 

lets start posting new threads to educate all people here on this forum that vaishnavism , christianity , islam along with the other world religions (excluding advaita , shaktas , shaivas , ganapatyas , sauryas) are the true religions.

 

what a pity that people are not waking up even after 30 years of an illustrious movement .

[ranjeetmore]

 

 

Srimad-Bhägavatam (1.2.23):

"The transcendental Personality of Godhead is indirectly associated with the three modes of

material nature, namely passion, goodness and ignorance, and just for the material world's

creation, maintenance and destruction He accepts the three qualitative forms of Brahmä,

Visñu and Siva. Of these three, all human beings can derive ultimate benefit from Visnu, the

 

form of the quality of goodness."*

 

Padma Puräna explains:

"In some mahä-kalpas a jéeva soul becomes Brahmä by devotional service, and in other

 

mahä-kalpas Lord Mahä-Visñu Himself becomes Brahmä."

Just as Srila Veda Vyasa is accepted as good as Sri Bhagvan being a Shaktyavesa Avatara..so also,Lord Brahma is accepted as non-different from the Lord.

Reflect upon the Leela the Lord played On Sri Brahmadeva....Sri Brahmadeva Exhibited great Mystic power with the agency of YOGAMAYA.

YOGAMAYA.

Learn this word.

Sri Bhagavan and His Expansions...all of Them are GOVERNORS of YOGMAYA.

Brahma,Vishnu,Shankar,Rama,Uma,HArihara,etc.

Whereas the bhaktas WORK WITH yogmaya.They NEVER govern the Svarupa Shakti.This is the simplest way to understand this topic.

 

Text 27

 

 

kvacij jéva-viçeñatvaà

harasyoktam vidher iva

tat tu çeñavad evästaà

 

tad-aàçatvena kértanät

 

The scriptures explain that, as Brahmä is, so Shiva is sometimes a jéeva soul and sometimes

 

an avesa-avatära like Lord Sesa(Ananta Sesa/Vishvanatha.).

 

sadäçiväkhya tan-mürtis

tamo-gandha-vivarjitä

sarva-käraëa-bhütäsäv

aìga-bhüta svayam-prabhoù

väyavyädiñu saiveyaà

 

çiva-loke pradarçitä

 

Siva's form named Sadäsiva, who is a direct expansion of the Personality of Godhead, is

the CAUSE OF ALL CAUSES, is free from the slightest scent of the mode of ignorance, and resides.

So,there is absolutely NO DOUBT that Lord Shiva is NOT a DEMIGOD.

 

in Sivaloka, is described in the Väyu Puräëa and other scriptures.

[ranjeetmore]

Srila Vishvanatha Chravarti thakura warns that whosoever fights that "Shiva is greater Or Vishnu is greater,both end up committing offenses."

 

He further states that Lord Shiva has ALL the three SAKTIS,(Maya,Jeeva and SVARUPA.)

 

Vishnu Shaktih para prokta....

 

Those three energies are possessed by Lord Shiva also.

 

Shivaya Vishnurupaya shiva Rupaya Vishnave.

Shivasya Hridayam Vishnu Vishnochh Hridayam Shivah.

Lord Vishnu is Lord Shiva's very Heart and Lord Shiva is Lord Vishnu's very heart.

BUT,The tamasic puranas are INDEED FAULTY.

They DO NOT MATCH with any deeper truths of the Smriti Sastra as revealed by the realised sages ( NOT BY SOME

Dr. Xyz from the Advaita Vedanta Library and Max Muellers and Goethes).

[yagna_narayana]

God Is the one. Whther it is Vishnu or Shiva or Shakti or Sai baba or Christ or Allah all are same but with different forms. Its the time to shed the humans' genral quality of finding out "who is supreme" as far as God is concerned.

[guliaditya]

Let's not start this debate again.Many a times this type of debate have already taken place in this forum.This is my humble request to all.

 

Pranaam

[raghu]

 

indeed , quite a horrifying incident !!!!

 

shiva and narayana same ?? NEVER !!!! im so scared that shiva might 'overtake' vishnu in popularity if such remarks go on to be preached.

 

By all means, let the religion of Shaivism overtake Vaishnavism in popularity, just as the watered-down, politically-correct, neo-Advaita of Vivekananda/Sai Baba Hinduism has overtaken genuine Vedanta in popularity.

 

No one ever said that "authentic" and "popular" were the same thing. Right knowledge presupposes the existence of misleading forms of "knowledge," and if some religions are "true" then others must logically be "false." If some individuals humbly listen in a sattvic way to right sources of knowledge and worship one Deity, then there must be others given to lower modes of behavior who will go to misleading sources and worship someone else.

 

In this sense these other religions certainly have an important role to play. Why would we want all these noisy and uncultured pseudo-Vedantists to pollute our spiritual practices? It's like giving a toy to a child so he will leave you alone while you do productive work on your computer.

[ranjeetmore]

Shiva is known as the Supreme Lord.

He resides beyond Maya.

He is indifferent from Lord Vishnu.

He and Uma are the same.

 

While teaching Shiva tattva to Lord Rama as leela,Sri Ramacandra became Lord Shiva and Lord Shiva became Lord Rama.

 

This personality of Sadashiva is also addressed as Bhagavan.

 

He exists in another form - as gopesvara.

 

He runs to vrajadhama as soon as He understands in his Samadhi,that Lord Govinda is performing rasa leela.

Parvati immediately enters as a gopi.

But one of the sakhis stops Lord Shiva.But on Sri Radhika's order,He takes on the form of a gopi and enters raasa leela.

 

Even Mahalaxmi is not allowed to partake in rasa leela.

[raghu]

 

While teaching Shiva tattva to Lord Rama as leela,Sri Ramacandra became Lord Shiva and Lord Shiva became Lord Rama.

 

Ranjeet,

 

If you can show me where in the rAmAyaNa this is stated, I will eat my sandals. Care to indulge me?

[gourshyam]

Please do not listen to just any other preacher. That is bound to confuse you a lot. Take shelter of Lord Krishna if possible. However, if that doesn't appeal to you and Shiva appeals to you, it should be fine to worship Shiva.

It all depends on what your actual position is today, you cannot accept a level that you are not meant for.

Shiva is a gunavatar of Krishna, but if you are a shaivite, you will disagree. No point in arguing about it.

[gourshyam]

Lord Sadashiva is considered to be non-different from Mahavishnu. Mahavishnu is purush incarnation of Krishna.

Again, if you are inclined to Shiva worship, you should go ahead and continue sincerely along that path.

"alpa bhagye kare na maniho Krishna dasa nama, alpa bhagye dasa nahi karen bhagawan".

Hare Krishna.

[gourshyam]

Someone said

"God Is the one. Whther it is Vishnu or Shiva or Shakti or Sai baba or Christ or Allah all are same but with different forms."

 

Jesus cannot be compared to Vishnu.

 

Allah is an impersonal form of God, contemplated (or speculated) by Muhammad. In fact as per history, Allah is one of the feminine deities of Kabah. Given the description on Allah , I can only consider Allah to be the material energy or Maya shakti.

 

Sai Baba is a siddha, Shirdi Sai Baba is a siddha. Those who worship him as God as "kartabhaja", an apasampraday.

[ranjeetmore]

It is stated in Ramcharitmanas of course.

But i'm guessing you are from Madhva sampradaya.

So anything from the Ramanandi sampradaya does not hold any authority for you.?

 

I'm losing faith in the sampradaya system faster than i'd ever imagined.

 

I came across a site claiming to follow Sri Madhvacharya's doctrine.

One topic over there was

 

Radha- a bogus deity.

 

I Frankly didn't have the courage to even read it.No doubt the upholders of such a disgusting theory will go to hell,but what saddens me the most that these people are in no way even 1% of what Sri MAdhvacharya was.

 

Have no doubt in your minds that the advatins are much better than such people.

 

People do not even spare Rama Krishna.They say,Rama was greater/Krsna was greater.Fine.I understand till this point...But when Sri Krsna nama sankirtana is going on,Can't a so called Rama bhakta not flinch and partake in the sankirtana?

 

IT is utmost important to first realise your Rama/Krsna/Vishnu.Then you go and do anything.Hell,Hanuman killed crores of people.

Until then,just slap yourself if you think that Sri RadhaKrsna/Sri SitaRama/Sri SriVishnu are different.

And also slap those who advocate such offensive nonsense.

 

Shame on the so called Madhvacharya followers.

They called Sri Gauranga Mahaprabhu's move as 'sick'.WHY ?

Because He took sannyasa from a advaitavadi.

 

Do these people even have purified intelligence to understand that the Lord and His associates/Their Works/Their pastimes/Their actions CANNOT be understood by ordinary logic?

If outward show was everything,why cannot a pundit who chants the Bhagavad Gita everyday attain prema bhakti ??

 

The great philosophy of the Vaishnava acharyas has been reduced to fit the mundane intellectual capacities of fanatics.

 

Ramanujites denounced Sri Ramananda for he believed that Bhagavad-Bhakti is to be distributed to the sincere seeker without considering his caste/race.

 

One sampradaya is quoting only 4 sampradayas are authentic.

Another of those 4 sampradayas is saying that all the sampradayas are bogus except that one,including the '3 other authentic' sampradayas.

If the realised Vaishnavas were limited to a single Sampradaya,there would've been no tulsidas,Meera,Kabir,and thousands of others.

if your insincere, God Himself will set you up with a fraud within the 'sampradaya' itself.

[raghu]

 

It is stated in Ramcharitmanas of course.

 

The question was where it is stated in Ramayana. Ramcharitmanas is not Ramayana.

 

 

But i'm guessing you are from Madhva sampradaya.

So anything from the Ramanandi sampradaya does not hold any authority for you.?

 

The Ramayana of Valmiki is the oldest Ramayana in existence that is currently available to us. Everyone more or less accepts its authority when it comes to matters pertaining to Rama's life. One cannot simply arrogate to less qualified sources the position of "authority."

 

 

I'm losing faith in the sampradaya system faster than i'd ever imagined.

 

Merely having faith in something does not make it correct. It is better to think objectively and rationally.

 

 

I came across a site claiming to follow Sri Madhvacharya's doctrine.

One topic over there was

 

...irrelevant to the question at hand. You claimed that Rama became Shiva and vice versa. Where is the evidence? Changing the topic will not conceal the fact that you are speaking falsehoods. You should retract your statement rather than persist in defending your mayavadi hypothesis.

[ranjeetmore]

Listen,

I believe in accepting realised Vaishnavas on basis of their teachings,knowledge of shastra and their corroboration with the other realised transcendentalists.

Tulsidas was one such personality.

Have you even read Ramcharitmanas ??

I would like to see any authority in any of the sampradayas to produce such work.

 

Srila prabhu pada says,"Never go to see a mahatma.Always go to hear him."

 

In what position are we to decide if Ramcharitmanas is not an authority?

 

Jeeva Goswmi says that sadhu vakya is also accepted as Pramana.

Are you aware of the fact that Ramcharitmanas corroborates perfectly with Ramayana?

So it is logical to conclude that the above mentioned incident can be found in the Ramayana.I haven't even read the Ramayana.

 

If you have,then do so again coz surely you missed that point out.

[kaisersose]

 

In what position are we to decide if Ramcharitmanas is not an authority?

 

Common sense? A 16th century North Indian Hindi text like the Ramcharitmanas cannot be expected to become an authority for all of India, no more than a 12th century South Indian Tamil work (Kambar's Ramayanam) is expected to be treated as a national level scripture. And there is no point in quoting a text to people who do not consider it an authority.

 

 

Jeeva Goswmi says that sadhu vakya is also accepted as Pramana.

Are you aware of the fact that Ramcharitmanas corroborates perfectly with Ramayana?

 

I am aware that it does not. As I know, Tulasidas expanded certain areas which were not treated in detail by Valmiki. In other words, the Ramcharitmanas contains material that cannot be found in the Valmiki Ramayana. And this extraneous material is not authoritative to people who do not consider the 16th century work as scripture.

 

So what does all this mean? It means when you quote such non-standard texts, you want to be explicit about the source. When you talk about Rama and fail to mention the source, then it is assumed that you are quoting from the Valmiki Ramayana - which was not true in your case.

 

Cheers

[Amlesh]

 

Common sense? A 16th century North Indian Hindi text like the Ramcharitmanas cannot be expected to become an authority for all of India

 

It already is. I guess, Kaisersose you are not from India... else I should say you are blind and deaf.

 

Tulsidasa's Ramcharitramanas is the most influential work in the recent times.

 

Its impact is all over Mauritius also.. I mean among the Hindu community.

 

 

I am aware that it does not. As I know, Tulasidas expanded certain areas which were not treated in detail by Valmiki. In other words, the Ramcharitmanas contains material that cannot be found in the Valmiki Ramayana. And this extraneous material is not authoritative to people who do not consider the 16th century work as scripture.

 

So what does all this mean? It means when you quote such non-standard texts, you want to be explicit about the source. When you talk about Rama and fail to mention the source, then it is assumed that you are quoting from the Valmiki Ramayana - which was not true in your case.

 

Cheers

Your sentiment won't help much here.. please see the ground reality.

[raghu]

 

Listen,

I believe in accepting realised Vaishnavas on basis of their teachings,knowledge of shastra and their corroboration with the other realised transcendentalists.

Tulsidas was one such personality.

 

How do you know? That is merely a statement of blind faith.

 

 

Have you even read Ramcharitmanas ??

 

I have the entire text in the original Hindi and can show you several statements from it that betray a mayavadi bias in the text. And all this from your "realised transcendentalist."

 

 

I would like to see any authority in any of the sampradayas to produce such work.

 

There is no need, since Valmiki already did it.

 

 

Jeeva Goswmi says that sadhu vakya is also accepted as Pramana.

 

Really? Where does he say that? And how does he define sadhu?

 

 

Are you aware of the fact that Ramcharitmanas corroborates perfectly with Ramayana?

 

Are you aware that you have no idea what you are talking about? There are several instances where the Ramayana and the Ramcharitmanas diverge, most notably the one in which it is claimed that Rama became Shiva and vice-versa.

 

 

So it is logical to conclude that the above mentioned incident can be found in the Ramayana.I haven't even read the Ramayana.

 

If you have,then do so again coz surely you missed that point out.

 

This has got to be, without a doubt, the stupidest thing I have ever seen written on this forum. And that is truly an accomplishment considering I have read the offerings of theist and ghari against which I have this to compare.

 

Now let me see if I get this straight:

 

You criticize me because you think I have not read Ramcharitmanas.

 

Then you claim the incident in question occurred in the Ramayana because you read it in Ramcharitmanas.

 

Yet you admit that you have never read the Ramayana.

 

Why can't you just admit that you were wrong instead of inventing this bizarre "logic" to justify your wild and unsubstantiated claims?

[Amlesh]

 

 

There is no need, since Valmiki already did it.

 

 

There is the need.. Sanskrit is complex for many these days.

 

I've listened to Mukesh's Chaupai on the Ramcharitramanas... and that taught me how damn hard the task is to give a perfect translation, that too in a poetic way and also intensifying the element of Bhakti in each line.