[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Siva as yogi?

Subject: Re: Siva as yogi?
susarla.krishna@studentserver1.swmed.edu wrote:

>rbalasub@engibous.ecn.purdue.edu (Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian) wrote:
>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 

In the Shiva Rahasya Chapter in the Skanda Purana, there is a shloka of 40
verses where Vishnu praises Lord Shiva as the Ultimate truth and it ends as

Ithi Sthuthva shivam vishnu: pranamya cha muhurmuhu:
etc. so on and so forth.

This is enough proof that Shiva is worshiped by Lord Vishnu. Of-course one 
can invent yet another classification that these Puranas are tamasic so that 
ignoring such verses or interpreting it according to one's convenience is
justified.

>>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.

Post after post you have clearly revealed this attitude of yours. If it
is not obvious enough read your own posts. In any case where is the personal
attack? It was merely an observation.

>>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

Of course it is a sect of Hinduism, as Catholicism is a sect of Christianity.
You clearly stated that since so many people have adopted Vaishnavism it must
have some merit on its own. It was quite obvious. In fact you again say the
same thing in your following sentences.

>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.

Plainly nonsense. The vedas say no such thing.

 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.'

The same can be said of Buddhism. And Buddhism is against any desire, infact.
So what's the point?

>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. 
>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.
>

Indeed. You were trying to club Saivism and Smarthaism together. I thought you
didn't know. I must have guessed better. It's again the "Vaishnavites 
vs the rest of the ignorant folks tactic".

>
>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?

Simple. Various people saw various aspects of the truth and emphasized what
they saw. The very fact that contradictions exist can mean only that.

>
>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. 

Well, the things I quoted above should suffice.

>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? 

This "tamasic purana" is another fiction invented by bigots. As I said before 
it is an excuse. If contradictory view points exist in some other purana, just
say that it's tamasic and for lower people. I refuse to accept that the 
verses I quoted are tamasic unless you find verses in the same purana, said 
by Vishnu himself that he said it for tamasic people. Any other purana or 
quotes from Vaishnavite leaders will not be accepted.

>Just ignore it and say everything is one?

Yes.

Ramakrishnan.

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Follow-Ups:
Advertise with us!
This site is part of Dharma Universe LLC websites.
Copyrighted 2009-2015, Dharma Universe.