Krishna/Narayana/Lord Siva

[ranjeetmore]

Lord Brahma addresses Lord Shiva: "My dear Lord, devotees who have fully dedicated their lives unto your lotus feet certainly observe your presence as Paramatma in each and every being" SB 4.6.46

 

Srimad Bhagavatam is considered more authoritative that the Ramayana.

 

Why is it so hard to understand that Shankara is the same personality ??

When you are offending Shambhu,you obviously offend the same Lord Vishnu.

In the svetasvatara upanishad,rudra is said to be that Supreme person.

What can you possibly say to counteract Sruti Pramana ??

 

Is it so tough to accept that Sri Krsna Expands into Sadashiva just as He expands into Narayana?

Obviously if you are from Madhva,Ramanuja,etc,then i dunno what to say to you.

[ranjeetmore]

"Yo brahmanam vidhidhati purvam

yo vai vedamsca prahinoti tasmayin.."

 

- Svetasvatara Upanishad 6.18.19

 

He who Projected Brahma at the beginning of the creation...I surrender to that Effulgent One.

 

Here,Sri Vishnu is addressed,in the same upanishad where Shankara is said to be the Supreme.

 

Shankara is accepted as non-different from Sri Vishnu.

[kaisersose]

 

Is it so tough to accept that Sri Krsna Expands into Sadashiva just as He expands into Narayana?

Obviously if you are from Madhva,Ramanuja,etc,then i dunno what to say to you.

 

You should be able to say the exact same thing - as long as you what say is broadly applicable. If not, then you are preaching to a specific audience, in which case you should make that clear.

 

Actually you are preaching to a specific audience by quoting authorities and interpretations specific to Gaudiya Vaishnavas. Hence, you are preaching to GVs only. When you fail to mention that on a general spiritual forum, then it is assumed to be for all and then you know what happens.

 

Cheers

[bija]

 

When you fail to mention that on a general spiritual forum, then it is assumed to be for all and then you know what happens.

 

Explaining why that happens might be helpful?

[kaisersose]

 

Explaining why that happens might be helpful?

 

Because there are multiple traditions and no two of them are in full agreement. If we intend to address the wider audience, then we should stick to quoting sources/concepts which have wider acceptance. Else, we have to specifically define the range of our intended audience.

 

 

Cheers

[raghu]

 

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.

 

I fail to understand what the need is to rewrite the Ramayana when a simple translation into Hindi would suffice.

 

While we are on the subject, I have yet to see a specific, objective argument as to why Ramcharitmanas is as authoritative as the Ramayana when discussing the life of Sri Rama. So far the whole premise of this argument seems to be that the Hindi speaking audience of North India likes it. But since they are the ones by your own admission who would have trouble digesting the Sanskrit from the original, it logically follows that they would be unqualified to make such a judgement. Small wonder then that they are oblivious to the differences between the two.

[Amlesh]

 

I fail to understand what the need is to rewrite the Ramayana when a sample translation into Hindi would suffice.

 

Then the poetic beauty that only Sri Tulsidasa beholds would have gone into waste.

The thorough study of Sri Tulsidasa's life only can give a more justified answer to your question.

His first attempt of translation or summary was not in Awadhi.

How he chose that particular language is in itself a great story.. having known this, all your questions will be answered.

 

 

While we are on the subject, I have yet to see a specific, objective argument as to why Ramcharitmanas is as authoritative as the Ramayana when discussing the life of Sri Rama. So far the whole premise of this argument seems to be that the Hindi speaking audience of North India likes it. But since they are the ones by your own admission who would have trouble digesting the Sanskrit from the original, it logically follows that they would be unqualified to make such a judgement. Small wonder then that they are oblivious to the differences between the two.

Tulsidasa's Bhakti is the reason for the existence of The Ramcharitramanas.. and Bhakti means approval of God.

 

The Ramcharitramanas is as Authorative as the Ramayana.. of this I've no doubt.

It's impact was seen during the cleansing process of many greats while preparing for the great battle of independence of India.

The Ramcharitramanasa was one of the major inspiration of that era.

Gandhiji's and Ram Manohar Loria's were great students of that collossal text. The question is not about being qualified or not, but the demand of circumstance. The important factor was to preserve the essence of Ramayana, that is Bhakti and Sri Tulsidasa is just the epitome in that matter.

What the North Indian can understand or not in terms of linguistic capabilities does not really matter.. what matter is that it gave unflinching devotion to many and in consequence, they became so so heavy that even the British could not hold that weight.

No weapon, no act of violence, no deceit, no duplicity but only Bhakti as their ammunition in their Arsenal, but still they made the British have some rude time. The influence of Sri Tulsidasa's Ramcharitramanasa is inestimable..

[raghu]

Ranjeet,

 

Once again you are evading the real issue and throwing up tangential arguments to conceal your own dishonesty.

 

The fact is, Rama did not "become" Shiva (nor vice-versa), and this story is nowhere to be found in the Ramayana of Valmiki.

 

You should just admit when you are mistaken rather than throwing out a bunch of out-of-context quotes to avoid admitting your mistake.

 

Now as far as your limited understanding of these other sources is concerned:

 

 

Lord Brahma addresses Lord Shiva: "My dear Lord, devotees who have fully dedicated their lives unto your lotus feet certainly observe your presence as Paramatma in each and every being" SB 4.6.46

 

First of all, the Bhagavata is smriti and its authority cannot supersede shruti. Secondly, if you are understanding this to mean that Shiva is the same as Vishnu, then you would be hard pressed to explain references (all from the iskcon edition) like SB 4.3: sattvaM vishuddaM vasudevashabditaM yad Iyate tatra pumAn apAvR^itaH in which Shiva declares himself to be a devotee of Vasudeva, SB 8.12.1-43 in which Shiva is bewildered by Vishnu's mohini form, SB 10.63.23-30 in which Shiva is defeated by Sri Krishna on the battlefield, SB 10.88.1-40 in which Shiva is threatened by Vrikasura and requires Vishnu to be freed from the horrible benediction given to him, etc.

 

At best, the Bhagavata contradicts itself on the matter of Shiva's position with respect to Vishnu. But in the vast majority of cases it is clear that Shiva is considered less than Vishnu.

 

 

Srimad Bhagavatam is considered more authoritative that the Ramayana.

 

Well, the Bhagavata narrates the story of Rama in 9th skandha, adhyAya 10-12 and guess what? There is no story of Rama "becoming" Shiva there, either.

 

 

Why is it so hard to understand that Shankara is the same personality ??

When you are offending Shambhu,you obviously offend the same Lord Vishnu.

 

 

It is not an offense to Shiva to correctly describe his position with respect to Brahman based on the evidence.

 

 

In the svetasvatara upanishad,rudra is said to be that Supreme person.

What can you possibly say to counteract Sruti Pramana ??

 

Is it so tough to accept that Sri Krsna Expands into Sadashiva just as He expands into Narayana?

Obviously if you are from Madhva,Ramanuja,etc,then i dunno what to say to you.

 

That's probably because their followers believe in getting a comprehensive understanding of shruti, while you seem to think it is acceptable to just pick and choose the evidence that seems to support your view while rejecting the rest.

 

On the matter of the shvetAshvatara u. it is true that the Supreme is referred to as Rudra, Maheshvara, etc. But these are also names of Vishnu, just as names like Indra and so on can also be names of Vishnu in the right context. As per the principles laid out in Vedanta-sutra, when the supreme is being referred to by a name ordinarily associated with a subordinate entity, it should be understood from context that Brahman is being referred to, and not the subordinate entity. By the way, this principle is also accepted by your own Baladeva VidyabhUshana, the gaudiya vedanta commentator. Not that this would mean anything to you.

 

Now as far as shruti pramAna is concerned, we have the Rig Veda which explains that Rudra gets his power by worship of Vishnu:

 

asya devasya mILhuSo vayA viSNoreSasya prabhRthe havirbhiH

vide hi rudro rudriyaM mahitvaM yAsiSTaM vartirashvinAvirAvat || RV 7.40.5 ||

 

This mantra says that Shiva gets his strength by propitiating Vishnu. This contradicts your point of view that Shiva and Vishnu are the same.

 

Either Shiva (Rudra) is the same as Vishnu or he is not. Merely saying that Vishnu is also called Rudra, therefore he is the same as Rudra/Shiva is not sensible. That would be like me saying that anyone whose name is Raghu is also the same as me.

 

As far as traditional Vaishnavas are concerned (i.e. before 16th century Sri Chaitanya), Vishnu and Shiva were always considered separate deities. The attempt of gaudiyas to claim that Vishnu and Shiva are same in some sense seems like nothing more than a ploy to win over followers of mayavada and Shaivism.

[raghu]

 

Then the poetic beauty that only Sri Tulsidasa beholds would have gone into waste.

 

I'm sorry, but your argument is simply sentimental and wishy-washy. Certainly Tulasi dasa was a gifted poet and had bhakti of a sort for the Lord. But that does not make his work equal to the Ramayana. One cannot simply rewrite the story in his own way and pass it off as equal to the original.

 

 

The Ramcharitramanas is as Authorative as the Ramayana.. of this I've no doubt.

 

Again, you have not given any objective reason to support such a thesis, and the fact that most Vaishnava vedantists would disagree with you just underscores the audacity of your claims.

[melvin]

You can`t equate Lord Siva with Sri Krsna. Although both are simultaneously one yet each is different. Sri Krsna is greater than Lord Siva. & This is a fact.

[Amlesh]

 

I'm sorry, but your argument is simply sentimental and wishy-washy. Certainly Tulasi dasa was a gifted poet and had bhakti of a sort for the Lord. But that does not make his work equal to the Ramayana. One cannot simply rewrite the story in his own way and pass it off as equal to the original.

 

Bhakti is based on sentiment.

All rational logic and intelligent know how comes before Bhakti.

Bhakti is the unattached duty attached to the Lord.

That very sentiment is dedicated to Sri Rama.

 

Had it not been the case, it would not have been sanctioned in the first instance.

 

 

Again, you have not given any objective reason to support such a thesis, and the fact that most Vaishnava vedantists would disagree with you just underscores the audacity of your claims.

So be it.. but none can prove the contrary to me either.

 

I've only told you the fact. The reason is that I can see that.. is because I've done many research work on all that and everything that I'm saying was based on the sayings of those greats only.

Now if you say so, then everything should become a hypothesis only.

All the facts will be given, according to your degree of consiousness, the conclusion will be Automated.

Choice is always yours.

[kaisersose]

 

So be it.. but none can prove the contrary to me either.

 

That is probably because you are not aware of how a disciplined system has been developed over time and followed for a long time in India.

 

Consider a Bhakta of the 21st century who is highly revered in his circles as someone who has frequent visions of Krishna, etc. Now he says it is time to (he has been sanctioned) enhance the Gita and adds 500 more verses. You are saying - because his followers have sentimental attachments to this individual - that these 500 verses are equally authoritative as the original 700 verses.

 

If you think about it, you will realize that such a "dynamic" system cannot be sustained for long.

 

Cheers

[raghu]

 

Bhakti is based on sentiment.

 

That is merely your opinion. Centuries of Vaishnava scholars and their followers would disagree with you.

 

 

So be it.. but none can prove the contrary to me either.

 

Logically, the burden of proof lies on the one making the ludicrous claim.

 

 

I've only told you the fact. The reason is that I can see that.. is because I've done many research work on all that and everything that I'm saying was based on the sayings of those greats only.

 

 

I have also done the research, and as someone who has examined both the work of Tulasi dasa and of Valmiki, I can tell you that there are irreconciable differences between these texts. No amount of politically-correct fluff is going to change what I can see with my own eyes, and no amount of appealing to the sentiments of unqualified individuals is going to change the fact that traditional scholars do not give the same weight to Ramcharitmanas as they do to Valmiki.

 

None of this is to disparage Tulasi dasa or his poetic abilities in the least. Surely we can appreciate someone's attempts at expressing his 'devotion' without falsely elevating him to a position that he does not really have.

[Amlesh]

 

That is probably because you are not aware of how a disciplined system has been developed over time and followed for a long time in India.

 

Consider a Bhakta of the 21st century who is highly revered in his circles as someone who has frequent visions of Krishna, etc. Now he says it is time to (he has been sanctioned) enhance the Gita and adds 500 more verses. You are saying - because his followers have sentimental attachments to this individual - that these 500 verses are equally authoritative as the original 700 verses.

 

If you think about it, you will realize that such a "dynamic" system cannot be sustained for long.

 

Cheers

To tell you the Truth I don't come from any kind of system itself.

Even while reading the Gita.. I did it with scrunity..I never bothered how many verses it held.. even if there'll be one additional verse... it will have to pass through a proper testing channel.

Well, by saying all that.. it showed my degree of Ahankara..

 

But, to go more deeper.. I will say... the important word is Dependence.. dependence on the Supreme. What I can see is many things are mechanised down here.. sticking to some discipline...

The basic funda of self realisation to be completed is detachment to the regulative principle in itself, to the belief system and everything else.. where truth is, there should one be.

 

The coming of Sri Sankara to explain a particular doctrine was the necessity of that time and so was that of Sri Tulsidasa's.

However, I care less about how many verses was added or removed to make the Sri Ramcharitramanas as long as it remained pristine in its depiction of Bhakti.

I've read the Sri Ramcharitramasa.. It gave the same essence as the Bhagvatam combined not to mention about the Ramayana..

[Amlesh]

 

That is merely your opinion. Centuries of Vaishnava scholars and their followers would disagree with you.

 

 

That is your opinion.

 

The tears of joy of Shabri..

The annoying mood of the Gopis when Sri Hari parted ways.

The agony of Mira Bai due to separation from Sri Krishna.

The tender caress of Yashoda.

The tears of Ramanuja when his master failed to understand a verse dedicated to Sri Hari.

The cry of Guha.

The smile of Bhisma when Sri Hari raised a weapon.

 

the list is long...

 

 

Logically, the burden of proof lies on the one making the ludicrous claim.

 

True.. you've got the Jnana.. time for Vijnana now.

 

 

I have also done the research, and as someone who has examined both the work of Tulasi dasa and of Valmiki, I can tell you that there are irreconciable differences between these texts. No amount of politically-correct fluff is going to change what I can see with my own eyes, and no amount of appealing to the sentiments of unqualified individuals is going to change the fact that traditional scholars do not give the same weight to Ramcharitmanas as they do to Valmiki.

 

Your mind was never in search for Bhakti, that's why.

My aim is Bhakti, to arouse the divine sentiment for Sri Rama.

 

Well, I now can understand your style... so I should now concur with you.

 

1.You are right... Tulsidasa's saw himself meeting the Lord during that period as well when the Lord was there. OMG, how's that possible.

2.Tulsidasa missed 2 Kandhas also.

3.et al

 

 

 

None of this is to disparage Tulasi dasa or his poetic abilities in the least. Surely we can appreciate someone's attempts at expressing his 'devotion' without falsely elevating him to a position that he does not really have.

Hmmm.... you are right. At least some common ground.

But I yet have some questions.. why was it important to have Ramayana in the first instance.

Is it a valid text? Why beleive in the word of Valmiki?

Is it Sruti?

[kaisersose]

 

To tell you the Truth I don't come from any kind of system itself.

These systems have have been carefully developed as objectively as possible, mainly to preserve their integrity over time.

 

I will try to make this more concise.

 

1) Madhvacharya [12th century] laid down a doctrine which does not allow Shiva becoming Vishnu or vice-versa (That kind of an interchange is very Advaitic). His doctrine harmonizes all the leading scriptures of the day and provides a common teaching/message.

 

2) Valmiki Ramayana is the most authentic source for the story of Rama available.

 

3) Tulasidas [16th century] writes a new version of Ramayana where Shiva becomes Vishnu, etc. There was no noticeable attempt to comply with other scriptures.

 

Now

1) and 2) are in sync.

2) and 3) are not exactly in sync as 3 contains extraneous material.

1) and 3) definitely contradict each other.

 

How will you reconcile this?

 

If I had to make that choice, (3) is good as long as there are no contradictions, but where there are contradictions, I would be inclined to pick (1) as it is more objective, (3) being more subjective.

 

Cheers

[Amlesh]

 

These systems have have been carefully developed as objectively as possible, mainly to preserve their integrity over time.

 

I will try to make this more concise.

 

1) Madhvacharya [12th century] laid down a doctrine which does not allow Shiva becoming Vishnu or vice-versa (That kind of an interchange is very Advaitic). His doctrine harmonizes all the leading scriptures of the day and provides a common teaching/message.

 

2) Valmiki Ramayana is the most authentic source for the story of Rama available.

 

3) Tulasidas [16th century] writes a new version of Ramayana where Shiva becomes Vishnu, etc. There was no noticeable attempt to comply with other scriptures.

 

Now

1) and 2) are in sync.

2) and 3) are not exactly in sync as 3 contains extraneous material.

1) and 3) definitely contradict each other.

 

How will you reconcile this?

 

If I had to make that choice, (3) is good as long as there are no contradictions, but where there are contradictions, I would be inclined to pick (1) as it is more objective, (3) being more subjective.

 

Cheers

(3) Is not exactly what Sri Tulsidasa meant.

Lord Shiva was given a great place in the Ramcharitramanasa but was shown as a Bhakta only.

There'll be a place where Rama is shown praying to Lord Shiva. But the context is needed to be understood.

Remember, the description of Lord Shiva's marriage is given and also even before the birth of Lord Ganesha, it is mentioned that, both Parvati and Lord Shiva bowed in front of the Murti of Ganesha for benediction.

Lord Rama's came here to show what an ideal man is. Sri Tulsidasa's description of the event of Malleshwaram was what actually is meant to be done for a man before undertaking any task.. that is prayer to Mahadeva...

Lord Krishna even washed the feet of Sudama.. that does not mean that the role Bhakta and Bhagwan was interchanged.

 

Madhava is right in that sense and also there is no contradiction with what Tulsidasa said.

Tulsidasa never actually gave the same position of Rama with Shiva, but acknowledges Lord Shiva to be from a different platform.

It is known in Hinduism that there are 3 figures that has never changed their Bodies.. Vishnu, Shesha and Shiva.

That has been recited in the Ramcharitramanas but not in a recount.. it was said when Parvati asked Lord Shiva.. what are the significance of the skull garland?

Lord Shiva said.. it is all the Parvatis that He collects in memory when they die.

 

(2) and (3) might show an apparent contradiction.. but that also it seems in appearance but in substance it is not so.

 

It is said in the Ramcharitramanasa that He [Tulsidasa met Sri Rama]. But many will agree? But it is also said that Sri Tulsidasa is the incarnation of Sri Valmiki.

Valmiki met Sri Rama.

 

Anyways; all that might be again tried in a hypothesis.. but with the neat vision of Spirituality.. the words and apparent contradiction of Sri Tulsidasa can be understood.

[ranjeetmore]

The truth is,raghu,you will never be able to understand my views for whenever a person glorifies Shankara,by deault you get your defenses up.

 

I accept the position of Shankara as Sri Rama's eternal servant.I propagate it,in fact.

But doesn't Sri Bhagavan,in leela,act equal to and/or subserviant to Sriman Narayana ????

Bhagavatm is smriti,yes,but it is more authoritative Ramayana,isn't it now ?

 

How am i avoiding the discussion by giving you tangible pramana ??

 

Sadashiva is indifferent from Sri Vishnu.

 

But the Bhagavan feature being the basis(pratishtha) of Paramatma as well as Brahm,it is accepted that Sri Krsna is the 'origin' so to say,of Sadashiva.

 

HOW do you counteract smriti pramana that Sri Vishnu is equal to Sadashiva ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

[ranjeetmore]

Kaisersose will now tell us if Ramcharitmanas matches with the scriptures or not.

 

WOW.

 

 

But no thanks...The head of Ramanadi sampradaya....Sri Rambhadracharya ji.If he doesn't reconcile Sri Ramcharitmanas with Valmiki Ramayana,I WILL EAT MY SANDALS.

 

What do you know about the intricate details and teachings of bhakti ???

 

Tulsidas confirms all the spiritual truths that are found in the revealed scriptures.

And Shankara and Sri Vishnu is the same implies that Kaisersose is same as Sri Vishnu.

 

Well,you see,Brahmadeva doesn't say in the bhagavatam,"Kaisersose,you are the paramatma within every jeeva."

 

So we should get the cue.

[ranjeetmore]

[4.6.42]

brahmovāca

jāne tvām īśam viśvasya

jagato yoni-bījayoh

śakteh śivasya ca param

yat tad brahma nirantaram

“Lord Brahmā said: My dear Lord Śiva, I know that you are the controller of the

entire material manifestation, the combination father and mother of the cosmic

manifestation, and the Supreme Brahman beyond the cosmic manifestation as well.

I know you in that way.”

 

 

tvam eva bhagavann etac

chiva-śaktyoh svarūpayoh

viśvam srjasi pāsy atsi

krīdann ūrna-pato yathā

“My dear Lord, you create this cosmic manifestation, maintain it, and annihilate it

by expansion of your personality, exactly as a spider creates, maintains and winds

up its web.”

 

[44]

tvam eva dharmārtha-dughābhipattaye

daksena sūtrena sasarjithādhvaram

tvayaiva loke 'vasitāś ca setavo

yān brāhmanāh śraddadhate dhrta-vratāh

 

“My dear Lord, Your Lordship has introduced the system of sacrifices through the

agency of Daksa, and thus one may derive the benefits of religious activities and

economic development. Under your regulative principles, the institution of the four

varnas and āśramas is respected. The brāhmanas the refore vow to f ollow this

system strictly.”

 

[49]

bhavāms tu pumsah paramasya māyayā

durantayāsprsta-matih samasta-drk

tayā hatātmasv anukarma-cetahsv

anugraham kartum ihārhasi prabho

 

“My dear Lord, you are never bewildered by the formidable influence of the illusory

energy of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Therefore you are omniscient and

should be merciful and compassionate toward those who are bewildered by the

same illusory energy and are very much attached to fruitive activities.”

 

[8.7.19]

tad ugra-vegam diśi diśy upary adho

visarpad utsarpad asahyam aprati

bhītāh prajā dudruvur ańga seśvarā

araksyamānāh śaranam sadāśivam

“O King, when that uncontrollable poison was forcefully spreading up and down in

all directions, all the demigods, along with the Lord Himself, approached Lord Śiva

[sadāśiva]. Feeling unsheltered and very much afraid, they sought shelter of him.”

 

Here Sri Vishnu is mentioned as 'The Lord Himself',thus identified as Supreme.

 

[21]

śrī-prajāpataya ūcuh

deva-deva mahā-deva

bhūtātman bhūta-bhāvana

trāhi nah śaranāpannāms

trailokya-dahanād visāt

“The prajāpatis said: O greatest of all demigods, Mahādeva, Supersoul of all living

entities and cause of their happiness and prosperity, we have come to the shelter

of your lotus feet. Now please save us from this fiery poison, which is spreading all

over the three worlds.”

 

 

[23]

guna-mayyā sva-śaktyāsya

sarga-sthity-apyayān vibho

dhatse yadā sva-drg bhūman

brahma-visnu-śivābhidhām

“O Lord, you are self-effulgent and supreme. You create this material world by your

personal energy, and you assume the names Brahmā, Visnu and Maheśvara when

you act in creation, maintenance and annihilation.”

 

 

 

 

Lord Sadashiva is same as Mahavishnu,Thus there should be no difficulty in understanding this statement.

 

[24]

tvam brahma paramam guhyam

sad-asad-bhāva-bhāvanam

nānā-śaktibhir ābhātas

tvam ātmā jagad-īśvarah

 

“You are the cause of all causes, the self-effulgent, inconceivable, impersonal

Brahman, which is originally Parabrahman. You manifest various potencies in this

cosmic manifestation.”

 

[29]

mukhāni pañcopanisadas taveśa

yais trimśad-astottara-mantra-vargah

yat tac chivākhyam paramātma-tattvam

deva svayam-jyotir avasthitis te

 

"O Lord, the five important Vedic mantras are represented by your five faces, from

which the thirty-eight most celebrated Vedic mantras have been generated. Your

Lordship, being celebrated as Lord Śiva [sadāśiva], is self-illuminated. You are

directly situated as the supreme truth, known as Paramatma."

 

 

 

[40]

pumsah krpayato bhadre

sarvātmā prīyate harih

prīte harau bhagavati

prīye 'ham sacarācarah

tasmād idam garam bhuñje

prajānām svastir astu meī

 

 

“My dear gentle wife Bhavānī, when one performs benevolent activities for others,

the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Hari, is very pleased. And when the Lord is

pleased, I am also pleased, along with all other living creatures. Therefore, let me

drink this poison, for all the living entities may thus become happy because of me.”

 

Source- Bhagavatam.

[ranjeetmore]

“...As Lord Sadāśiva, the transcendental deity from Vaikuntha who is the fountainhead

of all the forms of Śiva within the innumerable mundane universes, saw the

wicked age of Kali, or quarrel, destroying all godly qualities in man, He became

filled with compassion.

After many deliberations with goddess Yogamaya He sat down on the shore of the

Causal Ocean, where Lord Mahāviśnu lies in mystic slumber.

That great, ever-joyful yogi sat down on a yoga-asana and began to practise yoga

there. After 700 years of penance the Universal Lord Mahāviśnu appeared to Him.

Five-headed Sadāśiva then offered many kinds of indescribable praises to

Mahāviśnu, who replied: "My dear Sadāśiva! Why are You trying to please Me by

performing such difficult austerities? You and I are one! We differ only in body!"

Sadāśiva replied: "My dear Lord, unless You empower Me to save suffering

mankind, how can I do it?"

Then Mahāviśnu embraced Sadāśiva and thus They assumed one captivating,

radiant golden form in which They would appear, roaring out 'Krsna! Krsna!'

Then a most amazing divine voice resounded in the sky, proclaiming: "Listen, O

Mahāviśnu! First descend in the womb of Labha-devi in this form— later I will

personally descend in Nadiya. You will then find Me in the abode of Saci and

Jagannatha. Balarama and all the other devotees will also all take birth there to

redeem the conditioned souls."

Hearing this, Mahāviśnu who is non-different from Sadāśiva, entered the womb of

Labha-devi in Santipura.”

In his previous birth Kuvera Pandita was the celestial treasurer Kuvera, the head of

the Guhyakas, or ghostly followers of Lord Śiva. As he was a loyal disciple of Lord

Śiva, Dhanapati Kuvera had performed penances with mantras to attain the Lord as

his son, and the Lord blessed him by making him his father in his appearance on

earth as Śri Advaita Acarya...”

 

 

-Sri Advaita Prakasa.ch. 1

 

 

***

 

Pulastya says "When Lord Śiva became aware of Andhak's imminent attack, he

requested Nandi to summon all the Ganas who were more than 700 crores in

number. Some of the prominent Ganas like Pashupat, Kalmukh, Mahavrati,

Digambar, Maini, Mahapashupat and Vrishabhdhwaj arrived at Mandar Mountain to

help Lord Śiva at the request of Nandi.”

On seeing the valiant Gana- Pashupat, Lord Śiva embraced him, which surprised all

the other Ganas. They were amazed at the special honour given to him. Lord Śiva

realised their astonishment and said:

"Although all of you have great devotion towards me but in your ignorance, you

have shown disrespect towards Lord Visnu. All of you except Pashupat don't realise

that both of us [Lord Śiva and Visnu] are inseparable and there is no difference

between us. Pashupat is aware of this and hence he has been accorded the highest

honour."

Having said this, Lord Śiva revealed his majestic form of Sadāśiva to the Ganas.

The Ganas were bewildered on seeing the whole universe existing within Sadāśiva.

Lord Sadāśiva then transformed his appearance into that of Lord Visnu.

 

- Shiva Mahapurana.

[ranjeetmore]

Brahma Vaivarta Purana (Prakriti Khanda 2.56.61)

svapne jagarane sasvath Krsna dhyana ratah Śivah

yatha Krsnas tatha sambhur na bhedo madhavesayoh

 

"Sleeping or awake, Śiva is constantly absorbed in meditation on Śri Krsna. As is Śri

Krsna, so is Śambhu; there is no difference between Madhava and Isa."

 

This statement is exactly like saying Sri Krsna is indifferent from Mahavishnu.But at the same time,Sri Krsna is accepted as the basis of Mahavishnu.

 

I estimate that some unintelligent and offensive people will start nonsense about how Brahm-vaivarta is non-authentic...

But you can't ignore Bhagavatam can you ?

Then there is Skanda upanishad.(sruti pramana BTW)

 

Skanda Upanishad (8-9.)

“I bow to Śiva of the form of Visnu and Visnu who is Śiva; Visnu is Śiva’s heart and

Śiva, Visnu’s. Just as Visnu is full of Śiva, so is Śiva full of Visnu. As I see no

difference, I am well all my life.”

 

 

***

“Anyone who does not like one of these two Lords does not like both Lords. Lord

Caitanya and Lord Advaita are like Lord Krsna and Lord Śiva.”

 

- chaitanya Bhagvata 9.84

 

***

brhad bhagvatamrtam 2.3.116

The Lord's associates said: O Lord, you are not different from the Lord of

Vaikuntha, and Gauri is not different from Goddess Laksmi.

[ranjeetmore]

"....me, I will make sure that the Lord's maha-prasada is distributed to everyone

throughout the universe, even to the dogs and jackals.”

At that moment, the lord of Vaikuntha, Visnu Himself, arrived in Kailasa to uphold

Parvati's promise. Respectfully, Parvati stood up and offered obeisances to the

Lord. With tears in her eyes, she let our a sigh and told her problem to the Lord.

In a joyful mood, I, Locana Dasa narrate this storry.

Murrari Gupta continued speaking to Damodara Pandita. “Then Lord Visnu spoke in

a sweet voice: “Katyayani, don't' be in ignorance. You are My adya-sakti, and

through you I manifest the entire material creation. I know that you have devotion

for Me.

You are my prakrti svarupini [the form of Visnu's energy]. You always engage in My

devotional service. Without you, the material creation can not exist. The whole

creation worships you and your husband, Lord Śiva, as Hara and Gauri knowing

that you are both My very self. Pleasing you removes the misconception that you

and Lord Śiva are different from Me. Please be assured I will keep your promise. I

will personally distribute My maha-prasada to everyone in the universe”.

Sutra-Khanda

Glories of Gauranga's Associates

Following Mahaprabhu's orders, His various associates appeared on earth with new

names and identities. Mahesa Thakura [Lord Śiva] took the name Kamalaksana and

appeared in a brahmana family. He received the title “Advaita Acarya” upon

completing his study of the Vedas.

That great personality previously known as Maha-Mahesvara was completely

situated in the mode of goodness. Yet the people of the world called it the mode of

ignorance. Seeing only his external behavior, ignorant people, who could not

perceive his inner nature, said he was in the mode of ignorance.

This mode of ignorance predominates in materialistic devotees. Such foolish,

ignorant devotees can't understand the real position of HariHara. How can one

mistakenly speculate that Hari Hara [Visnu, Śiva] are in the mode of ignorance?

Now just consider how Lord Gaura is the best of all incarnations.

Taking the name Sita, Goddess Katyayani appeared on earth in a brahmana family.

After marrying Advaita Acarya they both preached prema-bhakti.

 

 

 

 

Śri Rama Caritamanasa (Lanka-Kanda)

“The monkeys brought huge mountains, which were received like playballs by Nala

and Nila. When the All-merciful saw the exceedingly beautiful construction of the

bridge, He smiled and observed thus:

This is a most delightful and excellent spot; its glory is immeasurable and cannot

be described in words. I will install (an emblem of) Lord Śambhu here: it is the

crowning ambition of My heart.. Hearing this the lord of the

monkeys despatched a number of messengers, who invited and fetched all the

great sages. Having installed an emblem of Lord Śiva and worshipped It with due

solemnity, He said, .No one else is so dear to Me as Śiva. An enemy of Śiva

although he calls himself a devotee of Mine, cannot attain to Me even in a dream.

He who is opposed to Śankara and yet aspires for devotion to Me is doomed to

perdition, stupid and dull-witted as he is...”

"Men, who, though devoted to Śankara, are hostile to Me and even so those who

are enemies of Śiva but votaries of Mine shall have their abode in the most frightful

hell till the end of creation."

 

 

 

 

 

 

I would like to apologise severely to Sambya,specifically for my earlier posts...They must surely contain some offensive elements...for i wasn't so clear on this topic then.

Who says Sri Tulsidasa is wrong ??

 

 

 

Such nonsense is nutured by the so called Self righteous Vaishnavas.

[ranjeetmore]

 

Ranjeet,

 

 

 

SB 4.3: sattvaM vishuddaM vasudevashabditaM yad Iyate tatra pumAn apAvR^itaH in which Shiva declares himself to be a devotee of Vasudeva,

.

 

Accepted By Shiva in Ramcharitmanas.

 

 

SB 8.12.1-43 in which Shiva is bewildered by Vishnu's mohini form.

 

Sri Krsna is afraid of Jarasandha,who is like a twig,in front of that purna purushottama bhagavan.

What is that ?

Leela,manifested by Yogamaya.

Mahesvara has this potency of yogamaya.Thus they are on the plane of transcendence.Mahesvara getting attracted to Sri Mohini is only pleasant.It is beyond maya...He immolates Kaama deva himself remember.Mahesvara has no lust.

 

 

, SB 10.63.23-30 in which Shiva is defeated by Sri Krishna on the battlefield, .

 

true.Absolutely.

If MAhavishnu and Sri Krsna were to engage in battle purely for Leela,who do you think will emerge victorious ???

 

Either of them does,it won't matter.Sri Krsna expands into Mahavishnu...Abhinna amsa.

 

 

SB 10.88.1-40 in which Shiva is threatened by Vrikasura and requires Vishnu to be freed from the horrible benediction given to him, etc.

.

 

True.But the same bhagavatam states the above things...

 

 

At best, the Bhagavata contradicts itself on the matter of Shiva's position with respect to Vishnu. But in the vast majority of cases it is clear that Shiva is considered less than Vishnu..

 

Why so much animosity?

 

Scriptures disagree with you.

 

 

 

Well, the Bhagavata narrates the story of Rama in 9th skandha, adhyAya 10-12 and guess what? There is no story of Rama "becoming" Shiva there, either..

 

God,Do you know L-E-E-L-A. ??

 

LEELA LEELA LEELA LEELA LEELA.

 

Ramacandra was trapped in Naga-paash.

So now by your logic,He's should be weaker than some snakes.

Wonderful.

 

 

 

It is not an offense to Shiva to correctly describe his position with respect to Brahman based on the evidence..

 

Shaivites say that Vishnu 'all pervading one' represents Shiva and Shiva "all auspicious one" represents Vishnu.

 

Then one says that Shiva puranas,etc are 'interpolated'/manipulated,etc.

The saivites say the same about Vishnu purana,etc.

 

Although it is said that Sadashiva is a direct Personality of Godhead,Vaishnava Puranas are generally accepted due to the Svayam Bhagavan position of Sri Krsna.

 

 

 

That's probably because their followers believe in getting a comprehensive understanding of shruti, while you seem to think it is acceptable to just pick and choose the evidence that seems to support your view while rejecting the rest..

 

I don't reject the rest.In fact i should say the same about some pathetic 'madhva follower' who says that Radha is a BOGUS deity,while saying that the Radhikopanishad and Radhopanishad in the Vedas is Merely FICTITIOUS.

 

Ironic ?

I say plain dumb.

 

 

On the matter of the shvetAshvatara u. it is true that the Supreme is referred to as Rudra, Maheshvara, etc. But these are also names of Vishnu, just as names like Indra and so on can also be names of Vishnu in the right context. As per the principles laid out in Vedanta-sutra, when the supreme is being referred to by a name ordinarily associated with a subordinate entity, it should be understood from context that Brahman is being referred to, and not the subordinate entity. By the way, this principle is also accepted by your own Baladeva VidyabhUshana, the gaudiya vedanta commentator. Not that this would mean anything to you..

 

Does this principle also include the specific mention of the diety along with his/her's features and qualities ?

Brahma addresses SadaShiva clearly when he is petitioning Him to drink Poison.In the same chapter,Sri Vishnu is mentioned as 'The Lord Himself'.

 

He should be addressed as Hari because Srila vedavyasa,etc are called Hari.

But hara means one who emanates from Hari.But this is a seperate topic.

 

 

 

This mantra says that Shiva gets his strength by propitiating Vishnu. This contradicts your point of view that Shiva and Vishnu are the same. .

 

This apparnt 'contradiction' is due to your partial disposition towards a sampradyic view of Bhagavan.SadaShiva worships Sankarsana in His abode beyond Maya,eternally.

 

Sankarsana is the first expansion of Bhagavan.There is no contradiction.This is merely display of dealings between Bhagavan and His associates/Svamsas.

 

 

Either Shiva (Rudra) is the same as Vishnu or he is not. Merely saying that Vishnu is also called Rudra, therefore he is the same as Rudra/Shiva is not sensible. That would be like me saying that anyone whose name is Raghu is also the same as me..

 

If this logic were to be accepted,Sri Vasihnavism wouldn't have flourished on the basis of,"Whenever Rudra,Indra,etc is said,it addresses Sri Vishnu."

 

So we shouldn't apply our own logic.

 

 

As far as traditional Vaishnavas are concerned (i.e. before 16th century Sri Chaitanya), Vishnu and Shiva were always considered separate deities. The attempt of gaudiyas to claim that Vishnu and Shiva are same in some sense seems like nothing more than a ploy to win over followers of mayavada and Shaivism.

 

Bhagavatam was written thousands of years ago...before any of the Sampradayas even existed.

 

So was Maha shiva purana.

 

There was not a need to 'introduce' the 'foul attempt of saying vishnu = shiva in order to gain popularity amongst shaivism.'

It already existed in Bhagavatam.

 

 

 

 

You have absolutely no problem in accepting Srila Parashurama/Sri Buddha and Srila Vyasadeva as the Avataras of Sri Hari.

 

But as soon as Shambhu is said to be indifferent from Sri Mahavishnu,in the sense that He is His expansion,immediately you burn red and cry Foul ???

 

Why ?

[raghu]

 

The truth is,raghu,you will never be able to understand my views for whenever a person glorifies Shankara,by deault you get your defenses up.

 

Since it is rapidly becoming obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about, it is a foregone conclusion that no one else will either.

 

I could tell you that Vedantins (including Vaishnava vedantins) have for years placed the authority of shruti above that of smriti. But then you would just say you accept smriti as equal to shruti and wonder why anyone would disagree.

 

Similarly, I could tell you that a scripture is only useful in an inter-sectarian polemic when both parties accept its authority. There is not much point quoting a "scripture" as "proof" of your views when its authority is only accepted by you. All one needs to appreciate this point is common sense. If you have none, consider finding someone who does.

 

You haven't really responded to the pramAna I have quoted previously establishing Shiva's subordinate position with respect to Vishnu. Instead, you have merely quoted more sources that seem to support your position. This merely reinforces the point that you are just picking and choosing whatever seems to support your view and ignoring the rest, with (and this is a key point) no *objective* or *rational* explanation as to why the pramAna you ignore is unsuitable. When Vaishnava Vedantins put greater emphasis on shruti, they do so because they know shruti has been preserved over the centuries and its authority is accepted by all sampradayas. The same cannot be said for every smriti, some of which are genuine scriptures that have been adulterated by man-made intervention while others are man-made scriptures that are being passed off as divinely inspired.

 

It really becomes a problem when someone insists on being perceived as the most knowledgeable one on a forum like this, especially when he really knows very little. You should spend more time in reading/listening and less in typing/speaking so that you can acquire information instead of wasting life's precious moments trying to come across as more of an authority than you really are.

 

good day.

 

Raghu