[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Siva as yogi?
In article <48eams$mbm@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
rbalasub@engibous.ecn.purdue.edu (Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian) wrote:
>>Which other scriptures? Please be specific.
>
>Hmm. How about some verses from the Paadma Purana?
>
>First a brief introduction. Markandeya and other sages go to see Lord Krishna
>and he comes out wearing the sacred Ashes and the Rudraksha. And he tells
them
>
> Jagath sthusho hyatma mama mulam mahamune.
> Yo devaha sarva devanam Dheyaya pujya Sadashivaha.
>
>and so on and so forth. Consult the original for more. In the purana Krishna
>makes it amply clear that worship of Lord Shiva is most desirable.
That is fine, but the verse does not say that Shiva is to be considered
supreme over Vishnu. Vaishnavas also worship Shiva, as an elevated devotee who
is considered an authority in devotional service to Vishnu. There is nothing
wrong with worship of Shiva, if it is done with the proper understanding.
Shiva himself worships Vishnu, as confirmed in the Bhagavatam verse
vaisnavanam yatha sambuh. However, as far as scripture is concerned, Shiva is
not on the same level as Vishnu, although he may be presented as such for
those who are not yet willing to accept Vishnu as supreme.
>>I notice once again you are using the "his sect vs. my sect" approach,
>>something I found rather distasteful. I don't regard as a sect a religion
>
>Unlike you who uses the "my sect is the only right sect and all others are
>wrong" approach. How un-enlightened of him.
Please refrain from making personal attacks. I never made such a statement,
and I challenge you to find an example of such if you beg to differ.
>
>>which appeals to people of all cultures and creeds. Perhaps you would care
>>to explain how a "sect" which has gained followers from the Christian,
>>Islamic, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, atheist, and countless other faiths
>>could be considered a 'sect.' I myself used to be a Smartha Shaivite. But
>
>Now you are using the "countless number of people do it, so it has to be
right
>approach ".
Please reread my message, and not your own interpretations of it. If you had
bothered to consider the context, you would note that I was pointing out that
what Ken labeled as a "sect" was in fact not so. As an outside observer, it is
plainly obvious to me that this movement is teaching people to give up all
kinds of vices and embrace a form of monotheism that is sanctioned by the
Vedas. In contrast, many other world-wide religious movements become popular
because they sanction certain material desires, such as the desire for illicit
sex, the desire to eat meat, the desire to become independent of God, or the
desire to become God. I argued that because Gaudiya Vaishnavism is finding a
strong following in people of all cultures and creeds, that is good evidence
that is not a mere 'sect.'
A "Smartha Shavite"!! Shows that you know the meaning of probably
>neither.
Let me explain this further to you. I said that I was a "Smartha Shaivite,"
which means that my family followed the Smartha philosophy, and that we held
Shiva to be our primary deity. I know the meaning of both, having grown up in
that environment.
A Smartha is one who follows the Advaitic tradition. He may or may not
>have Lord Shiva as his favorite deity. He also thinks all the Gods are
>manifestation of the Self and holds all of the equal. A Shavite thinks of
Shiva
>the way Vaishnavites consider Vishnu. Many smarthas (ex. my grand father)
have
>Lord Narayana as their Kula-devata.
I know very well what Smarthaism is, and can't understand what I said that got
you so agitated. "Smartha Shaivite" does not mean that I was saying that all
Smarthas worship Shiva. It means that I was a Smartha who worshipped Shiva.
This ought to have been clear to anyone who wasn't simply looking for trouble.
>
>>it was only now that I have given the Vedic/Vaishnava paradigm more
>>consideration that I actually accepted that there was a being called
>>Shiva. Prior to that, I was taught, as many Hindus were, that all the
>>I have noticed that there are some people who take offense at the
>>scriptural idea that Shiva is Vishnu's devotee, even though (strangely
>>enough) they themselves do not believe in Shiva. This is a kind of
>
>Only Shaivaites who want to trumpet their agenda take offense at such things.
Exactly. That was the point I was making.
>Also Vaishnavaites like you take offense when Shaivaites use the same
>ridiculous arguments as you do in reverse, quoting the Shiva purana.
What quotes? And if such quotes exist how do you justify the fact that such
quotes would be contradicted by the Vedas and the other Puranas?
I noticed that you said my arguments were ridiculous. If it is ridiculous to
declare the identity of the Supreme Lord by quoting saastra, then what is not
ridiculous -- making up your own opinion about something you never saw or
experienced?
>Open your eyes and see the Shiva purana, Linga Purana, Arunanachala Mahatmya
>etc etc. The first two belong to the 18 major Puranas.
Perhaps because I am not an enlightened person like you, you might have to
open my eyes for me. I have already quoted the Bhagavata Purana, which is also
one of the 18 major puranas, stating that Shiva is a devotee of Vishnu.
Considering that the Bhagavatam belongs to the sattvic class of Puranas, it
carries at least as much weight as the Shiva purana (actually, it carries
more, since the Shiva purana is supposed to be in the tamaasa category). So
what is your response?
Just ignore it and say everything is one?
-- Krishna
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Moderator: Ajay Shah Submissions: srh@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu
Administrivia: srh-request@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu
Archives: http://rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu:8080/soc_hindu_home.html
References:
- Siva as yogi?
- From: ms018c@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Matt Stanley)
- Re: Siva as yogi?
- From: Hari Krishna Susarla <susarla.krishna@studentserver1.swmed.edu>
