Bhagwad Gita’s Vishwaroopa did not show lord Shiva

Well, let me make it clear in the very beginning of this post itself that I have no intentions to hurt any ‘True’ devotee of lord Krishna. This post is an eye-opener only for the fanatics who have always been observed deriding lord Shiva. Personally I don’t have any enmity with any form of God since God is one but s/he appears in the form of our choice just to please our hearts. However, unfortunately today our Sanatana Dharma of Hinduism has got divided into multiple sects, and out of them many have turned into cults. Most of the sects – preach wrong things about Lord Shiva, pass insulting remarks at him, and try to showcase him as a servant of their favorite form of god (Krishna, Rama, Vishnu etc.). But as per Vedas, Upanishads, and authentic scriptures; the reality is totally quite opposite to these claims.

Bhagwad Gita is a great Vedantic text and it is ‘Moksha Shastram (scripture which enlightens us with the knowledge leading towards salvation)’. However it has become the most incorrectly interpreted scripture. Unfortunately, nowadays it’s usage has become limited to ‘Supremacy Debates’ only.

It has been observed that there is a strong belief that Sri Krishna showed all gods and goddesses including Lord Shiva in his Vishwaroopa. In fact lord Shiva was NOT shown in Krishna’s Vishwaroopa. Shocked? Yes, truth is always bitter and gives shocking surprises!

In ‘Vibhooti Yoga’ chapter 10 of Bhagwad Gita Sri Krishna says,
“rudrAnAm sankaraschAsmi |” (BG. 10:23)
“Among the Rudras I’m Shankara”.

However the above verse is purposely mistranslated by Vaishnava websites as “among the Rudras I’m lord Shiva“. No doubt ‘Shankara’ is the name of lord Shiva only and they are one and the same, however the phrase “among the Rudras” needs to be taken into account while translating this verse. Let me explain the real meaning here.

Primarily, there are eleven Rudras called as Ekadasha-Rudras. They all are MANIFESTATIONS of Lord Shiva as the children of Goddess Surabhi (the celestial cow). Surabhi is called as ‘Prishni’ in Vedas, and her sons viz. the eleven Rudras are called as Maruts also in Vedas.

Rudras (Maruts) are like sons (or manifestation or incarnation) of lord Shiva. Their names have been given differently in various Puranas and Mahabharata because the Puranas many a times depict the stories of previous Kalpas also. And in every Kalpa these eleven Rudras are created by lord Shiva and the names of these eleven Rudras change in every Kalpa.

In the present Kalpa the names of the eleven Rudras are:
1. Mahadeva, 2. Shiva , 3. Maha Rudra, 4. Shankara, 5. Neelalohita, 6. Eshana Rudra, 7. Vijaya Rudra, 8. Bheema Rudra, 9. Devadeva, 10. Bhavodbhava and 11. Adityatmaka Srirudra.

Their 11 consorts of these 11 Rudras in this present Kalpa are respectively the following names:-

1. Dhee devi, 2. Dhritti devi, 3. Ushna (Rasala) devi, 4. Uma devi, 5. Neeyut devi, 5. Sarpi devi, 7. Eela devi, 8. Ambika devi, 9. Ieravati devi, 10. Sudha devi and 11. Deeksha devi

So, it’s just a matter of shear coincidence that the 4th son of Surabhi has been named ‘Shankara’ and again it’s a divine coincidence that his wife’s name happens to be ‘Uma devi’. In next Kalpa these names would change. And since Bhagawad Gita available with us belongs to narration based on this currently running Kalpa, Sri Krishna said he is Shankara among the Rudras.

Therefore Sri Krishna did not say that he is Lord Shiva, he said he is that Rudra among the 11 Rudras whose name is ‘Shankara’.

This is all about the statement given in ‘Vibhooti Yoga’ chapter. Now let’s move on to the chapter named ‘Vishwaroopa Sandarshana Yoga’ and analyze whether the cosmic form exhibited contained lord Shiva or not.

Many people mistakenly (or purposely) say that when Arjuna saw the cosmic form, he narrated the various figures that he beheld. During that narration Arjuna said:

“pasyami devam stava deva dehe |
sarvams tatha bhuta-visesa-sanghan |
brahmanam isam kamalasana-stham |
rsims ca sarvan uragams ca divyan |” (BG. 11:15)

This is Incorrectly (and purposely) translated by the Vaishnava websites as :

Arjuna said: My dear Lord Krishna, I see assembled in Your body all the demigods and various other living entities. I see Brahma sitting on the lotus flower, as well as Lord Shiva and all the sages and divine serpents.

However this translation is NOT authentic.

The phrase in 11.15 is “brahmanam isham kamalasana-stham“. Because the word “isham” appears between “brahmanam” and “kamala-asana-stham” it is a designation of Brahma who sits on the lotus, and hence the CORRECT translation should be – “Brahma who is the lord, is found seated on his lotus seat“. It very strongly proves that the sandwiched “Isham” is the quality of lordship and not a proper name. Therefore it refers to Brahma and states, “Lord Brahma is seated on a lotus“.

Ramanuja and Madhva both suggest that “isha” means Shiva who is seated on Brahma who is on the lotus seat. In his Bhashya Ramanuja writes, “tatha isham kamalasana-stham kamalasane brahmani sthitam” and Madhva follows Ramanuja here. However Adi Shankaracharya CORRECTLY interprets it that “isham” refers to Brahma in this verse and not to Shiva. In his bhashya Shankaracharya writes, “brahmanam chatur-mukham isham ishataram prajanam kamalasana-stham” and all the western translators (including Robert Zaehner who followed Ramanuja throughout differs with him and adopts Shankara’s interpretation as correct for this verse) follow Shankara. Brahma is “isham” because of his lordship over all creatures. Adi Shankaracharya is more reliable saint than the Ramanuja and Madhwa. Hence here Shankara’s words needs to be taken as true.

Ramanujacharya and Madhwacharya were not open to non-dualism principle, they propounded philosophies favoring Vishnu, hence it becomes obvious why the attempt was made by them and subsequent Vaishnavas to explain the verse in that way but it is rather unlikely.

Even the great Sanskrit scholar Mr. Kesari Mohan ganguly (KMG) who translated the Vyasa Mahabharata from Sanskrit to English in the period 1883-1896; even he did not err the way Ramanuja and Madhava erred in translating verse BG 11:15. He didn’t give importance of word “isha” at all. He simply translated it as follows:

Arjuna said, ‘I behold all the gods, O God, as also all the varied hosts of creatures, (and) Brahma seated on (his) lotus seat, and all the Rishis and the celestial snakes. I behold Thee with innumerable arms, stomachs, mouths, (and) eyes, on every side….

Therefore it should have become clear by now that Lord Shiva was not captured in the Vishwaroopa of Bhagwad Gita. In fact Lord Shiva is called as possessing Vishwaroopa in Vedas – “vishwaroopebhyo namah” (Sri Rudram of Yajurveda). And the reason why Lord SHiva was not captured in the Vishwaroopa is that – that cosmic form is “virAt rUpa”, that is simply called “virAt” and it is nothing but the sum total of all the gross bodies of the universe. SO, whosoever is born, would be seen in virAt, and lord Shiva is the only unborn Bhagawan, hence he cannot be seen in virAt. In fact that cosmic form was not shown by Krishna. It was lord Shiva’s cosmic form. Surprised? Yes, I can understand that. To know hiddens ecrets of Bhagawad Gita please read my analysis on Bhagawad Gita here.

Just for selfish benefit of making Krishna superior than everyone else, how far is it justified to state the infinite, unborn, eternal supreme lord Shiva as a subordinate of Krishna? – Answer is left to the readers!


Copyright © 2011, by Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula. All Rights Reserved.
Check the Footer of this blog for Licenses related details.

Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula (षण्मातुरः)
Follow him

Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula (षण्मातुरः)

Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula, is 'षण्मातुरः' or 'षण्णां मातृणां पुत्रः' in detail, which means 'The son of six (divine) mothers' as he considers the six great goddesses viz. Parvati, Ganga, Lakshmi, Bhudevi, Saraswati, and Gayatri, as his own mothers, and sees himself as an infant in their laps. Together with their respective consorts he considers them as his own parents. He considers their children such as Ganesha, Skanda, Sanatkumara, Narada, Pradyumna etc., as his own siblings; in fact, not different from himself. He loves these six mothers very dearly, and equally loves the divine fathers; however, he has offered his 'devotion' only to Mahadeva! Hence he stands for lord Shiva safeguarding him from his haters. One would know him better from his writings.
Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula (षण्मातुरः)
Follow him

136 Comments

  1. arun subbe

    If they claim “amongst the Rudras I am Lord Shiva”, I will say “amongst the Adityas I am Lord Vishnu”.

    Regards
    Arun

    Reply
  2. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula

    🙂

    Reply
  3. arun subbe

    Was reading Deivathin Kural, a series of discourses by Kanchi Paramacharya. While explaining the non duality of Shiva and Vishnu he says that Krishna before showing Vishwaroopa darshana tells Arjuna “pasyami yogam ishwaram” (See the power of Ishwara). The Vishwaroopa is actually Kalagni Rudra Mahakala who swallowed all warriors on the Kaurava side and Arjuna was terrified of that fierce form of Ishwara.

    Regards
    Arun

    Reply
    1. Karthick

      Hi Arun ji, Do you have a copy of Deivathin Kural English version?

      Reply
  4. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula

    Agreed with your point. All the Kuru warriors, all the Panchalas, all the Vrishnis, and even all the warriors of Lanka everyone were consumed by Mahakala. Outside world cannot see him hence Arjuna, and Sanjaya needed Divya-Dristi to witness that viswarUpam.

    Regards,
    Santosh

    Reply
  5. Lakshminarayana K

    Krishna displays his Viswa roopam at multiple points in the Mahabharata. There is a display of this viswa rupam in the Udyoga Parva which shows Shiva as part of Krishna.

    http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/mbs/mbs05129.htm

    tasya brahmā lalāṭastho rudro vakṣasi cābhavat

    Here is the translation –

    http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m05/m05131.htm

    “And on his forehead appeared Brahma, and on his breast Rudra….”

    This is clearly not the rupam of any Kalagni rudra but it is a Viswarupam of Vishnu alone. How do we know this? You also see the sankha, chakra, gadha and the bow called saranga in this rupam.

    śaṅkhacakragadāśaktir śārṅgalāṅgalanandakāḥ….

    “And on his diverse arms were seen the conch, the discus, the mace, the bow called Saranga, the plough, the javelin, the Nandaka…..”

    So there is no question of this rupam belonging to Rudra.

    Reply
  6. adbhutam

    The reason for Shiva not showing up in the Bhagavadgita 11 th chapter vishvarupa is because it was only in the form of Shiva, Rudra, that Brahman showed the vishvarupa to Arjuna. He says 'I am kāla, out to destroy the beings' and Arjuna, unable to bear the fierce form prayed to Krishna to withdraw that form and revert to his benign form. In the Prashnopanishat Bhashya Shankara has said that Prajapati, Prāṇa, is the one who, in the form of Rudra, destroys the created universe and in the 'sowmya' form sustains, protects, the world. The commentator Anandagiri has said, 'in the form of Vishnu, etc.'. So, the Bh.Gita vishwarupa, since it is a specific manifestation of the Destruction form of Brahman, which is Shiva, we do not see Shiva within the vishvarupa, since the vishvarupa itself is Shiva. On the basis of the Brahma sutra 2: janmādyasya yatah and Mundakopanishat: 2.2.12 (this vishvam, creation, is the Supreme Brahman indeed) and a host of other mantras everywhere, the world is a manifestation of Brahman and hence every vishvarupa is that of Brahman and not to be adduced to any sectarian deity. This is the way those who follow the traditional teaching of Advaita will understand the vishvarupam, in whichever text it is described. The Sri Rudram occurring in the Yajur Veda is a vishvarupam of Rudra, Brahman.

    Reply
  7. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula

    Thanks for your opinion on Vishwarupa. However, I would like to disagree with your opinion.

    I am very well aware of the instances where such (different) cosmic forms were displayed. For your kind information, Krishna had also shown another cosmic form to Utanka in Ashwamedha Parva of Mahabharata. But we need to compare apples with apples and not with oranges. None of those cosmic forms were same as the Bhagawad Gita form.

    Divine form in Hastinapur Sabha and also to Utanka in both these cases Krishna showed his another divine form, which was not the Viraat form of BG. Moreover in both these cases he showed his Vaishnava form without giving a Divya-Drishti (divine eyes), and Vishwaroopa (of BG) cannot be seen with normal eyes of flesh. The divine “Vishwaroopa” was witnessed only by Arjuna and Sanjaya; where both of them had the divine eyes, the former obtained from Krishna and the latter obtained it as a gift from Vyasa. In none of the other instances had Krishna ever bestowed divine-sight to any of the witnesser, which explains why they are not same as BG cosmic form.

    Moreover, in the same cosmic form shown in hastinapura sabha, I am not sure if you have read the opening verses of Krishna's words which read -“

    [ 'From delusion, O Suyodhana, thou regardest me TO BE ALONE, and it is for this, O thou of little understanding, that thou seekest to make me a captive after vanquishing me by violence….]

    And then he shows that he is NOT alone and shows that in and around him there are the five Pandavas, his own sons (pradyumna etc.) his brother Balarama, all adityas and Rudras, brahma and Rudra everyone with uplifted weapons ready to strike. That was to show the cosmic support that the entire divine and earthly beings have provided him (in other words, Krishna who was in support of Dharma and was working for the cause of dharma-sampsthapana, had the entire cosmos and heavenly beings in support of him).

    So, if Rudra is seen in his chest, does that make Rudra any subordinate? Or does that anyway relate to BG's cosmic form? Even Dadhichi had shown cosmic form once. No big deal! Anyone who is a master of Yoga especially the Kundalini one, can see (and show) entire universe within oneself. All the worlds and every being be it divine or humane, exists within the Sushumna alone and the brahmanda and pindanda are one and the same.

    The BG form was the terrible Mahakala form which cannot be seen with ordinary vision. There is none who can witness that Mahakala in that terrible form without fearing. Arjuna also trembled to see that form of Shiva and terrified he requested Krishna to show his auspicious and non-terrifying Vishnu form.

    In Mahabharata itself somewhere Maheshwara says to Uma something like “I assume all the ghOra forms and Vishnu exists in soumya forms”…..

    So, here is my last words – If you wish to see oneness between Hari and Hara, then that BG vishwarupa story can guide in that route very well and is agreeable to me, but if the intention (as vaishnavas have) is to prove Shiva as inferior to Krishna (Vishnu), then I cannot agree ever. 🙂

    Thank you!

    Reply
    1. Areem

      Who is superior and who is subordinate is all your assumptions. Trying to prove which form of God is superior is kinda dumb. All I can understand from the vishvarup is that everything is part of God. Shiva Vishnu Brahma are different manifestations of the one Supreme Lord. Its your favouritism that makes you people overanalyze and come up with your own conclusions. God simply said everything is He. I don’t get it- why would Shiva not appear in Vishvarup? Doesn’t make sense. Bhagavan was there showing vishvaroop (showing everything) then why Shiva won’t be there? Bhagavan is Vishnu Bhagavan is Shiva. Just different forms. Just because Bhagavan wears blue dress he is superior? Or he wears matted hair he is superior? Its just different forms manifested by Bhagavan for His purposes. Stop feeding your egos just because you happen to like a certain form of God. There is only one God with many forms. No one has seen the superior form, behind vishvarup, behind brahmajyoti. So stop being stupid. You say Shiva is superior but Vishnu is inferior or vice versa- hello both are same beings. Saying one form of God is inferior to another is insulting God. Oh God because you are holding trident you are inferior, when you hold chakra you are superior. I think this mentality is really stupid and people need to come out of it. Realize that God is one and everything prevades in Him. Doesn’t matter what form you choose to see him in or what name you call him. Its you people who confuse things with your own interpretations cause u want to prove your favorite form most superior. Did God say which form is superior? Noooooo! All He only showed his infinite forms. Those who are deriding vaishnavas and Vishnu and deeming Shiva Superior are no lesser than the Vaishnava claiming Shiva to me subordinate. Case of pot calling the kettle black. Realize that God is one and respect all His forms. Quit this stupid unworthy debate of which god is superior. Makes us look super dumb in the eyes of other faiths.

      Reply
      1. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula (Post author)

        Take your such dry sermons somewhere else pls! You don’t even seem to have read this article in totality. Otherwise you wouldn’t have come up with such sermons.

        //Shiva Vishnu Brahma are different manifestations of the one Supreme Lord. Its your favouritism that makes you people overanalyze and come up with your own conclusions//

        Shiva transcends the trinity For your kind info. It is not my over analysis, it is the conclusion of veda vyasa.

        //I don’t get it- why would Shiva not appear in Vishvarup? Doesn’t make sense. Bhagavan was there showing vishvaroop (showing everything) then why Shiva won’t be there?//

        Because that vishwarupa was Shiva himself in his fearsome mahakala aspect. Read my article on Mahakala tatwam for details.

        Rest all content in your lengthy sermon is just trash, every idiot (who falsely thinks s/he has mastered the scriptural essence) preaches the same. So, I have no comments to make on them.

        Reply
  8. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula

    Namaste Sir – True! Agreed with your thoughts..

    Reply
  9. Lakshminarayana K

    You said – “Divine form in Hastinapur Sabha and also to Utanka in both these cases Krishna showed his another divine form, which was not the Viraat form of BG”

    This is wrong. Let us look at the form displayed to Utanka –

    http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/mbs/mbs14054.htm

    śāśvataṃ vaiṣṇavaṃ dhīmān dadṛśe yad dhanaṃjayaḥ

    http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m14/m14055.htm

    “Vaisampayana continued, 'Gratified with him, the holy one then showed Utanka that eternal Vaishnava form which Dhananjaya of great intelligence had seen.”

    Clearly, Vaisampayana says that this is the same form that Dhananjaya/Arjuna has seen. Therefore, your contention that this is a different Viswarupa displayed to Utanka, is wrong.

    You say – “Moreover in both these cases he showed his Vaishnava form without giving a Divya-Drishti (divine eyes), and Vishwaroopa (of BG) cannot be seen with normal eyes of flesh.”

    Once again you are wrong. Look at this –

    http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m05/m05131.htm

    “And beholding that awful form of the high-souled Kesava, all the kings closed their eyes with affrighted hearts, except Drona, and Bhishma, and Vidura, endued with great intelligence, greatly blessed Sanjaya, and the Rishis, possessed of wealth of asceticism, for the divine Janardana gave unto them this divine sight on the occasion.”

    Clearly it shows that Krishna bestowed divine vision on some people.

    Now, let us come to your other point –

    “'From delusion, O Suyodhana, thou regardest me TO BE ALONE, and it is for this, O thou of little understanding, that thou seekest to make me a captive after vanquishing me by violence….]

    And then he shows that he is NOT alone and shows that in and around him there are the five Pandavas,…”

    Frankly speaking, this is not even an objection. The Viswarupa contains the summum bonum of all creation and hence you see everyone present in it. It merely shows that everything is present inside Krishna, so by definition he is not alone.

    You say – “So, if Rudra is seen in his chest, does that make Rudra any subordinate?”

    If it does not make Rudra as subordinate, what was the point of your whole post? You were trying to show that the BG viswarupa does not contain Shiva, because even you realized the implication that if it contains Shiva, it would make Shiva as a subordinate to Krishna. Now that I have shown an instance where the Viswa rupa contains Shiva, you want to claim that it need not show any subordination. Your stance is not consistent.

    Reply
  10. Lakshminarayana K

    You say – “Even Dadhichi had shown cosmic form once. No big deal! Anyone who is a master of Yoga especially the Kundalini one, can see (and show) entire universe within oneself.”

    Where is it written that Dadhichi has shown his cosmic form once? Quote me either Sruti or the two epics. Don't quote me puranas which are of dubious authenticity. And who says that any Kundalini yoga master can display Viswarupam? Quote me the sources and then I will accept it.

    By the way, have you realized that these are completely irrelevant points? Your very argument that Shiva is not a part of Viswarupa in BG is to show that Shiva is not subordinate to Krishna. Now that I have shown an instance where the Viswarupa of Krishna also contains Shiva, you are backtracking.

    Reply
  11. Lakshminarayana K

    You say – “If you wish to see oneness between Hari and Hara, then that BG vishwarupa story can guide in that route very well and is agreeable to me, but if the intention (as vaishnavas have) is to prove Shiva as inferior to Krishna (Vishnu), then I cannot agree ever. :-)”

    Dont try to portray yourself as a hari-hara aikya vAdin, for you are not one. You have after all written 10 articles to show that the Bhagavad Gita does not glorify Krishna, but glorifies Shiva only. Hence, your claim that you are agreeable to hari-hara aikya vAda, is hollow.

    I am also amused by your attempts to bring in Adi Sankara into the discussion in your post above. You have completely forgotten that Adi Sankara interprets the entire Bhagavad Gita in favor of Vishnu/Krishna supremacy only. So, stop your selective quotation of Adi Sankara.

    Reply
    1. Subodha katti

      Writer himself come to the conclusion that shankaracharya’s verse is reliable than others.LOL then no need of quoting others

      Reply
  12. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula

    [Quote]Janardana gave unto them this divine sight on the occasion. [unquote]
    Alright..I accept it slipped my eyes reading the line of awarding divine sight in Kuru sabha. But every other kurus were able to see that form but frightened they closed their eyes. It is not true with MBH warfield's cosmic form where all were clueless what arjuna and krishna were cooking in centre of battlefield. That was surely a different form. So, it seems that every divine form needs a divine sight to witness and some forms could be seen with naked eyes also but it frightens hence there if divine eyes are given they can see with wonder.
      
    In Utanka's case it is subject to different interpretations. There he is not given any divine sight and yes, it is said that it was same form that Dhananjaya had seen, it is apparent that it is not as terrible as what was shown in BG incident. Utanka became filled with vismayam and uncomfortable seeing that huge form but it doesn't indicate that it was same cosmic form what was shown in BG case. There the form was extremely terrible (in BG case) and arjuna kind of warrior himself became frightened. Utanka doesn't seem to have got frightened as such, but surely looks uncomfortable seeing that. So, on the basis of the triad “projection–gettingScared–requestToWithdraw” it cannot be concluded that all cosmic forms are same. Any cosmic form instills fright (of some degree) to the beholder. Even for instance when Hanuman was asked by Bhima to show his huge terible form, he didn't show his true form in full expansion saying, //'That form of mine neither thou, not any one else can behold.” //

    But still when he insisted, Hanuman showed him a subset of his gigantic form and that istelf made Bhima scared and he closed his eyes.
     
    //And beholding him like unto the sun in splendour, and unto a golden mountain, and also unto the blazing firmament, Bhima CLOSED HIS EYES. Thereupon Hanuman addressed Bhima with a smile, saying, 'O sinless one, thou art capable of beholding my size up to this extent. I can, however, go on swelling my size as long as I wish. And, O Bhima, amidst foes, my size increaseth exceedingly by its own energy.'//

    Then Bhima asks him to withdraw his gigantic form and appear in his original form as follows.

    //Vaisampayana said, “Witnessing that dreadful and wonderful body of Hanuman, like unto the Vindhya mountain, the son of the wind-god became bewildered. Then with his down standing erect, the noble-minded Bhima, joining his hands, replied unto Hanuman saying (there), 'O lord, by me have been beheld the vast dimensions of thy body. Do thou (now), O highly powerful one, decrease thyself by thy own power. //

    So, it is a common practice that scriptures have a common “template” to narrate the cosmic forms and after effects. Whatever gigantic form (of whatever degree of fierceness) one witnesses, one feels scared (or uncomfortable) to varying degree based on the fierceness of the form and requests the owner to withdraw and come back to original auspicious shape. Even in Puranas there are otehr god's cosmic forms where same style has been followed.

    This doesn't mean all cosmic forms displayed by krishna are identical since the descriptions and the witnesser's words do not match anywhere. Hence Utanka's experience could be a subset of the BG form hence Vaishmapayana said that it was same as what was seen by Dhananjaya but it was sepcifically termed here as “vaishnava” form whereas BG never referred to that vishwarupa as “vaishanva” form.

    Reply
  13. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula

    I do not deny that Vishnu has a gigantic form. In fact because he pervades entire universe (vishvam vishnuH…as the sahasranama starts) he is vishnu. So, the description of Utanka where he says earth is his feet, firmamant his head, and everything is spanned by his belly – is the all pervasive form. Having head at every side indicates his omniscience since he is generator of all created beings. In fact even in Vamanavatara he had spanned the three worlds. So, it doesn't indicate that he displayed the supremely terrible mahakAla form (damshtra karala mriyate mukhani…etc..) which was witnessed in BG time.

    If you want to hold on to your interpretation, let's agree to disagree and move on.

    [quote]If it does not make Rudra as subordinate, what was the point of your whole post? You were trying to show that the BG viswarupa does not contain Shiva, because even you realized the implication that if it contains Shiva, it would make Shiva as a subordinate to Krishn[unquote]

    That is vaishnavite opinion that whosoever is contained in vishwarupa is subordinate to Krishna. Hence I had to clarify the things. I am not sure if you had read the opening words of this very same article which reads as //”Well, let me make it clear in the very beginning of this post itself that I have no intentions to hurt any 'True' devotee of lord Krishna. This post is an eye-opener only for the fanatics who have always been observed deriding lord Shiva.”// Since they use BG incident to call Shiva as inferior that is a case for me to counter. Clear?

    [quote]Where is it written that Dadhichi has shown his cosmic form once? Quote me either Sruti or the two epics. Don't quote me puranas which are of dubious authenticity. [unquote]
    The latter part of your statement silenced me.

    [quote]And who says that any Kundalini yoga master can display Viswarupam? Quote me the sources and then I will accept it. [unquote]
    🙂 Self-service please! Kindly put your own efforts and I am sure in that process many more great things you would learn. Yogis who can turn their vision inwards ane can witness within, can see that entire universe, all gods, apsaras, all created beings, planets, heaven, earth and frimamant everything that exists outside exists within sushumna. Even entire universe is contained within you, within me, within everyone. brahmanda and Pindanda are same.

    [quote]Dont try to portray yourself as a hari-hara aikya vAdin, for you are not one. You have after all written 10 articles to show that the Bhagavad Gita does not glorify Krishna, but glorifies Shiva only. Hence, your claim that you are agreeable to hari-hara aikya vAda, is hollow. [unquote]

    No, never. I cannot portray myself as hari-hara aikya vadin till the time shiva-dvesha exists on this earth. When it vanishes i would probably become aikya vadin. So, your words about me is right at vyAvarahika level. But I don't have problems with thsoe pious men who want to see aikyatvam hence i had earlier said if you want to see aikya I am OK otherwise I disagree with you. Hope I made myself clear now!

    [quote]I am also amused by your attempts to bring in Adi Sankara into the discussion in your post above. [unquote]

    Good to see that it “amused” you. I am however “amazed” to find that after 4 years of publishing this article now you found it the auspicious moment to post comments and raise questions. I see these days there is an upsurge in comments from vaishnavites with fake google+ profile names and at the same time I see you also posting. These raise a lot of doubts in my mind about the team, the plan and the sponsers. I am open to speak that out.

    Reply
  14. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula

    Finally, I am not available for never ending debates, not ready for a blow for blow arguments either. You know very well that we both cannot agree. So, it is wise to agree to disagree and move on. I know you have enough time to engage people in lengthy debates, but unfortunately not all are gifted with such energy levels and unfortunately I cannot spare so much time for you. So, please allow me to focus my energies on my priorities and you may continue what you wish to do; but not here please! 🙂

    Reply
    1. Umakant BABASAHEB jadhav

      bhagwan shri Krishna and bhagwan Shiva both are same…
      un donho ne kabhi kon uncha kon nicha nahi mana to hum kaun hote he unki tulna karne wale…bhagwan shiv ki aap par kripa bani rahe…
      jay shri Krishna jay shivshankar…

      Reply
  15. Lakshminarayana K

    Regarding debates – I respect your time, but when you write on the internet, you cannot expect not to have any responses. I am the father of a child and I go to office everyday, but I try to find the time for debates. So everyone is working under their own constraints.

    Here are the salient points that I want to state –

    1. The form that Arjuna has seen in the BG is the same as the form that Utanka has seen. Utanka may not have been as frightened as Arjuna, but the Mahabharata itself says that the form is the same. When Mahabharata itself says that it is the same form, you cannot conclude that it is different. There is no question of subsets or supersets. Yes, there is no explicit mention of divya drishti to Utanka, but we may conclude that it is implied. Moreover, this form is mentioned as the Vaishnava form, so this form has nothing to do with Shiva. Hence, based on the Mahabharata, we can safely conclude that the BG form belongs to Krishna/Vishnu alone and not to Shiva. Note – I do not deny that Shiva could have his own cosmic form, but the one showed in the BG belongs to Vishnu alone.

    2. The form that is shown in the Kuru sabha required divya drishti for it to be seen. Again, this is mentioned by the Mahabharata itself. And it is also explicitly mentioned that all the Kings were frightened. This form may or may not be the same as the BG form, but this form has two key features – one, it belongs to Vishnu alone since it talks about Sankha, chakra, etc and two, this form of Vishnu has Shiva also in it. So whether you like it or not, Shiva is shown as a part of Vishnu here.

    Reply
  16. Lakshminarayana K

    You say –

    “That is vaishnavite opinion that whosoever is contained in vishwarupa is subordinate to Krishna. Hence I had to clarify the things.”

    As I see it, this is commonsense. Anything that is contained in Krishna's Viswaroopa is part of him, and hence subordinate to him. It does not require an Acharya giving reasons for this. This is plain commonsense.

    You say –

    [quote]And who says that any Kundalini yoga master can display Viswarupam? Quote me the sources and then I will accept it. [unquote]
    “:-) Self-service please! Kindly put your own efforts and I am sure in that process many more great things you would learn. “

    Lol, are you claiming that you have explored Kundalini yoga and realized that you can show a cosmic form. I would be more than willing to see your cosmic form. Please show it. Ok, jokes aside, when you make claims, you should back them up.

    You say – “I am however “amazed” to find that after 4 years of publishing this article now you found it the auspicious moment to post comments and raise questions. I see these days there is an upsurge in comments from vaishnavites with fake google+ profile names and at the same time I see you also posting. These raise a lot of doubts in my mind about the team, the plan and the sponsers. I am open to speak that out.”

    You should not be really concerned about whether my profile is real or fake. You should also not be concerned about why I have chosen to post at this auspicious moment only. What should concern you is the quality of my arguments. However, just to tell you about myself – I am a smarta, but NOT an advaitin. I have been in various internet forms for more than 10 years.

    Reply
    1. Light

      //As I see it, this is commonsense. Anything that is contained in Krishna’s Viswaroopa is part of him, and hence subordinate to him.//

      My soul is inside sheath of intellect inside my body. Does this makes my soul subordinate to my body ? Lord Vishnu lives in place inside Vaikuntha, does this makes him subordinate to Vaikuntha? Even if some forms show Lord Shiva inside Vishwaroopa it doesn’t makes him subordinate. Ok. It just means he is all pervasive and he himself is Vishwaroop and he is inside Vishwaroop also.

      And if you do not still realise it then see Vishwaroopa Shown by SadaShiva to Lord Rama in Padma Purana:
      “विष्णोर्दशावतारांश्च तत्तत्कर्माण्यपि द्विजाः ”
      He Lord Rama witnessed 10 Primary Incarnations of Lord Vishnu (inside Vidhwaroopa of Lord Shiva).

      //And who says that any Kundalini yoga master can display Viswarupam? Quote me the sources and then I will accept it. //

      Guru Gorakhnath who is incarnation of Lord Shiva taught it. He who also emphasized on Yoga Kundalini Upanishad states:

      “49. Then he sees the whole universe in his body as not being different from Atman. This path of the Urdhva-Kundalini (higher Kundalini), O chief of Kings, conquers the
      macrocosm.”

      Son of Vyasa Suka also became soul of all pervading the whole universe. Read Moksha dharma parva where Suka attains moksha:

      “Suka Sarvagoto Bhutwa Sarvatmaa Sarvatomukha”
      Suka entered the whole world, he became Atma of all and became omnipresent.

      Now, who became Sarvatama ie. Atma of all is the one who displays Vishwaroopa. And if you read verses before it in Sanskrit you will see that actually it is through Yogic process Suka attained that.

      Satapatha Brahmana Yajurveda 13.6.1.1
      “Purusha Narayana desired, ‘Would that I overpassed all beings ! would that I alone were everything- here (this universe) !’ He beheld this ‘five days’ sacrificial performance, the Purushamedha and took it and performed offering therewith ; and having performed offering therewith, he overpassed all beings, and became everything here. And, verily, he who, knowing this, performs the Purushamedha, or who even knows this, overpasses all beings, and becomes everything here.”

      Read the last sentence above. “And verily he who knowing this… overpasses all beings… becomes everything here.”

      BrihadAranyaka Upanishad: “And to this day who knows himself as I am Brahman becomes all this (Universe).”

      And by the Same Yoga, Rishi Dadhichi shows Vishwaroopa in Kurma Purana. So, now if you say I don’t accept Puranic story. Then I say Why should I accept Itihasa? I only accept Shruti which are eternal. And Vedas clearly state it is Lord Shiva whose form is this universe or who is Vishwaroopa.

      Yajurveda Sri Rudram:
      “Virupebhyo Vishwarupabhyeschavo Namo Nama”
      “Salutations to him who is formless (Virupa) and whole world is whose form (Vishwarupa).

      And hence as infallible Shrutis state Vishwarupa is Lord Shiva hence all the Vishwaroopa shown by other like Lord Krishna, SadaShiva to Lord Rama, Rishi Dadhichi in Kurma Purana, Devi in Devi Gita etc.. all are from relative persepective and they represent Vishwaroopa of Lord Shiva alone in absolute level.

      Reply
  17. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula

    If we consider the words of Vaishampayana which say “this was the form witnessed by dhananjaya”, that would contradict two excellent upa-parvas of Mahabharata viz. Bhagawad Gita upa-parva and Anu-Gita upa-parva.

    In Anugita episode Krishna had clearly expressed inability and said that it was “impossible” for him to discourse BG once more and the supreme Mahakala form of 11 chapter of BG was shown by resorting to Yoga. Hence if Utanka is assumed to have seen the same form, then it contradicts the aforementioned words of krishna. Well, no leela-vAda please! 'LeelavAda' also has certain norms like when to apply and when not to. Even if the circumstances support the incident in logical manner to insert “leela” is weak and poor attitude/reasoning. I am sick of vaishnavites trying to impose “leela” on everything that goes against their beliefs. Hence please, spare me and don't call krishna's words there as a leela! I see no reason why a repeat rendition of Gita could be avoided for Arjuna kind of person when there was plenty of time and when they were not having any fear of summer holidays coming to end and hence finding a way to join school on time. He could have easily narrated BG and followed by Anugita also if he was capable. And if Vyasa was so lazy to re-write entire 700 verses he could have simply said “…and then they had a repeat discourse of same BG for which please refer to Bhishma Parva. Then they had Anugita disocurse as follows…” and that's it. Neither I can see an excuse for leela in krishna nor an excuse of laziness in vyasa's pen in that scene. Hence facts are crystal clear – but may not be expected to be accepted by you. 🙂 So, let's move ahead.

    Now coming to Bhagawad Gita – Utanka episode's vaishnampayana's words contradict Bhagawad Gita itself where the bhagawan had said that in the world of men no body except Arjuna would be able to see that mahakala form. So, since that statement of Vaishampayana contradicts both Anugita and Bhagawad Gita, that statement is ruled out and rejected!

    Reply
    1. Sunil Kumar Das

      You can not separate anything that Krishna has ever done or told from the definition of Leela. If you are tired of the term it is your inability. And I strongly believe even for a split second if you stop to resist you will see for yourself what the implication is in the context where Krishna refuses to repeat Gita one more time to Arjun.

      When I am writing here I am putting my maximum effort to be extremely careful to frame my sentences and not loosely or with any less effort say anything that you would have heard or seen before. So that it will be grasped by your mind without any prejudice. A well wisher never says or does anything that will not be beneficial for the subject.

      Now having said that I believe that I don’t have to familiarize you with the circumstances and the conduct with which Arjuna requested Krishna to repeat Gita. And clearly it was not the same as that of Kurukshetra. And it is implied and anyone including you and me can see it without any question that even if Gita was spoken again at that time at that place Arjuna would not have grasped it again. Reason, Krishna explains to Arjuna “It is exceedingly disagreeable to me to learn that thou didst not, from folly, receive what I imparted. The recollection of all that I told thee on that occasion will not come to me now. Without doubt, O son of Pandu, thou art destitute of faith and thy understanding is not good. It is impossible for me, O Dhananjaya, to repeat, in detail, all that I said on that occasion. That religion (about which I discoursed to thee then) is more than sufficient for understanding Brahma. I cannot discourse on it again in detail. (beginning the story)…….. with an understanding adapted to my teaching, thou mayst succeed in attaining to the highest end…..”

      Krishna said and did what He did according to the need of the hour and according to the need of Arjuna. What Krishna had said and done in Kurukshetra, it was need of that moment to uphold Dharma. Arjuna had surrendered to Krishna asking for guidance seeking his mercy and Arjuna needed to be uplifted at that time to complete what was destined(Krishna could have done it without Arjuna though. He gave Arjuna to exercise his free will in the end). Anyway Anugita only substantiates the truth. You should be able to see that it was not possible to explain Gita ‘Asheshatah’. In detail.

      And the thing that Krishna claims that He concentrated unto Himself while he spoke BG. I don’t see what’s wrong with it. It is fine by everyone when Krishna runs, eats, drinks, steals, talks, sleeps but not when He said when He was situated in Yoga?? That is what the nature of Para Brahman. It is always sunk into itself. We as eternal fragments can also do that but our achievement will also be a fragment. Anyway what posture do you see Lord Shiva in? Always deep in the shelf.

      I don’t see why this topic creates so much fuss.No one is Gyani enough including you and me in this present age to interpret any scripture. Only we can tune ourselves so that we can resonate with the scriptures and be capable of seeing the truth. Trust me the truth is worth that. But if you come up with your twisted theories and propaganda it will harm you the most that it will to anybody else.

      I don’t see why everybody in present age tries to INTERPRET Gita. What need is there? How much more exclusive God could be If He were to speak about Himself ! Krishna in every line said what He said. Arjuna at that point understood what He said. Krishna acknowledged in many places when Arjuna referred to Krishna in his questions. You think Krishna lead Arjuna into believing in something that was untrue? or any less than the Absolute Truth?

      It really pains me brother that in Today’s age there can be people who would doubt like this.Do anything you might even throw Vishnu Idols into the Ocean as some Shaiva king had done in the 12th century. But not this in the name of your Dharma.

      Reply
      1. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula (Post author)

        I loved the way you have presented your thought process.

        //It really pains me brother that in Today’s age there can be people who would doubt like this.Do anything you might even throw Vishnu Idols into the Ocean as some Shaiva king had done in the 12th century. But not this in the name of your Dharma.//

        I am sorry if you happened to be pained by these posts. You seem to be a good guy having no malice for shiva, so you should not be reading these articles. However, I am not sure why your kind of goody goody people do not happen to see what twisting and (mis)interpreting of shiva related texts are being done since ages by shiva hating vaishnavas?? Have you ever lectured like this to such shiva-drohi people who are in multitude on this earth? I hope not! Reason being, it is futile to oppose them as they are a huge army, and hence you and your kind of goody goody people come and try to ‘preach’ me because shiva supporters are very less in number and it is safe to mess with them. isn’t it so?

        Not sure how true it is that some king had thrown Vishnu idols in ocean, but it is very much evident from history how many anti-shiva acharyas have tampered the glory of shiva.

        Till the time shiva-droha exists on the earth, I would remain functional. Can’t help.

        Reply
        1. Sunil Kumar Das

          Let me share with you what I have understood till now in this very brief journey of mine towards spirituality. It might not be anything for you. You might have had more and proper encounters with that Truth. But I would like to take this opportunity to share my experience.
          Pardon me if you think this attempt of mine is imprudent. But trust me when I see this crack getting bigger and deeper I see more vividly only the reflection of destruction. And like you can’t help yourself I sometimes can’t help myself but doing something like this. Like I am posting here right now.

          Sometimes somewhere it seems like someone is winning or someone is loosing. But it is all Maya. You think there is any difference between a Shiva Drohi and a Vishnu Drohi ? If you see there is no difference then only you are seeing. A Drohi is a Drohi . Shiva or Vishnu doesn’t matter. Just like a thief sometimes steals one thing or another. But he is a thief nonetheless.

          You are now identifying yourself as a Shaiva. May be in your next birth you will identify yourself as a Vaishnava. Vice Versa is also equally true. If you think something like this is not possible then you are cheating yourself. If you think you can take that chance you are fooling yourself. If you now go for searching evidence in scriptures then you are intelligently fooling yourself. But truth has its way of revealing itself. That is how you realize the truth and I realize the truth.

          Shiva or Vishnu not the problem. It is Droha/Dwesha that is the problem. This Prakriti is nurturing us creating so much diversification in itself. So that we can learn and evolve. Also brother look around you. This is Kali Yuga. It is very much real as we think life and death are real. Feel fortunate that you are a Shaiva and you get to devote yourself for Lord Shiva.
          There are poor souls around the world who thinking Lord Shiva as a hindu God and Lord Krishna as a hindu God turn away from this Sanatana Dharma. And everyday howmany more turn away of their own will. Nature diversifies itself and creates another path to realize the same truth in the form of another religion. But some come to their senses some keep falling down and down.

          This is pure Maya. Lord’s the most powerful energy. And you can’t escape it. If you think you have the ability to brand some one as a Shiva Drohi then it is only because you are a Vishnu Drohi. Just like a thief can very well see through another thief. Don’t deny it. Your work says otherwise.

          And I am a Drohi as well. And brother may be this is the last time I am posting here, but your posts just do the opposite of helping to people of my kind. Imagine if I had become a
          staunch Shaiva after reading your post then after staying a so called shaiva for a while again become a staunch Vaishnava after reading a Vaishnava post. What would be my position in the end? Certainly not attainment of liberation. Rather may be I will one day become something else entirely because Mother Nature will put me in a path where there will be no Shiva or no Vishnu. Just because I am not worthy of practicing Sanatana Dharma. I am afraid of that. And on behalf of people of my kind even if I am the only one of my kind I request you not to post like this. No matter how long you remain functional in this life or next this is clearly not the way of helping a fellow Shaiva or Shiva.

          You should know that that Supreme that who sits in everyone’s heart alone judges and rewards. He is Achyuta unlike you or me. He never falls down. Let Him be the judge let Him be the Punisher as well as the Deliverer. It is not our position to take revenge.

          Just ask for Mercy nothing else. Half the time or even if a little time that you spend in thinking/(mis)interpreting/writing your posts, don’t you think even that much time you should devote to Lord Shiva? And No. Writing posts like this and doing what you are doing is not serving Lord Shiva. Has it ever worked? Ever? Will a true devotee of Lord Krishna who knows Him in Tattwa ever turn away from Lord Krishna by reading your posts? Will a true Shaiva ever turn away by reading some slander against Lord Shiva? If not, Then why do you write these posts? and for whom? Only those who have just started their spiritual journey(of my kind) will suffer from slanderous posts having no true foundation written by a fundamentalist in the guise of a Shaiva or a Vaishnava. Don’t you think you can be a little more careful a little more responsible in your posts? Doing like this don’t you think you will gradually take to a higher level of consciousness? And then the highest/?

          You don’t have to put a disclaimer to show that you are not guilty. Or you don’t have to mention explicitly to express your devotion. Disclaimer thing is new age Maya. That Lord who is pumping your heart is the same Lord dwelling in my heart. If your intention is pure you don’t need a disclaimer. That what is pure devotion will always shine ir-respectively, unconditionally. It will be absolute and never inspire hatred in anyone for any other person. If your work harms even a single entity in any way you shouldn’t do that. That is the highest understanding. May be I am not as much Shaiva as you are but I hope that you will understand.

          I learnt it very recently that while relaxing sometimes while being in that state of half dream and half wakefulness when one’s material mind was off but the consciousness was still there in that kind of state(I am elaborating) even Shakuni used to wonder “Krishna, what a personality……” and then he would snap right back and then he will as usual think “I have to win against that MAN.”. And if you attempt to tarnish His glories and if you try to justify your action in someway do you think even Lord Shiva will forgive you for that! May be. I don’t know much.

          I could go on like this for ever. There is only one truth I am trying to show you in all these lines. But if you can’t see any thing in this attempt what I am trying to show you then there is no point in attempting again. Because only by one’s own free will can someone accept something in true sense. The truth can’t be forced into someone. That is very much true about acceptance of the absolute truth or any relative truth. When Krishna told Arjuna everything, He really told Everything. It is so simple. Except that one has to be capable reading and understanding plain Sanskrit what other qualification is necessary to understand Bhagavad Gita? Why any interpretation ? Interpolation/extrapolation?
          And if Arjuna couldn’t hold what was bestowed unto him, then it was his lack of faith. He was not an Adhikari. And Krishna chose to explain the same truth in the form of AnuGita which He though would be more beneficial for Arjuna given the situations or circumstances. It is the knowledge of Bhagavad Gita (that the Lord bestowed on the Mankind out of his causeless mercy) makes BG special not the Sanskrit words that are in it. Unless it is memorized like the kids memorize Multiplication Table it can’t be reproduced exactly the same way using the same words. Even if it were to come then the same knowledge and the same absolute truth would come but in a different way. But that was the highest knowledge which Arjuna was not ready for so instead Lord gives him another form of relative knowledge holding onto which Arjuna could attain liberation. That is what Krishna meant by “Asesatah”(In Details) before he started AnuGita. This is written in Mahabharata you know that.

          And I think I have told everything I had to say for now. Please don’t mind my mistakes if there are any. After all it has been only 2 years since I have been trying to understand scriptures. In the beginning I used to smoke weed and only listen to Prayers to Lord Shiva. I still do. That is how I started on this path and come this far. And I am trying to surrender unto Krishna as much as possible as soon as possible in true sense which I don’t know how much I have achieved. Hope Krishna will be merciful and forgive me if I have committed any mistakes unintentionally. It was my honest attempt to share my experience. I was very much agitated after reading your blogs. My attempt was to convince you so that no one else of my kind has to feel that kind of intense agitation and God forbid may be get swayed away from the spiritual path.
          But I choose to make peace and move on, on my path. And I would also advise anyone reading this post to do the same. This life is so little and there is so much to understand.

          Hope you enjoy reading this. 🙂

          Reply
          1. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula (Post author)

            //I could go on like this for ever. There is only one truth I am trying to show you in all these lines. But if you can’t see any thing in this attempt what I am trying to show you then there is no point in attempting again. Because only by one’s own free will can someone accept something in true sense. The truth can’t be forced into someone. That is very much true about acceptance of the absolute truth or any relative truth. //

            That should be the gist of your post. And I am totally in sync with what this para says. No point in trying to waste your time on me. People listen only when the voice comes from inner self. So, please don’t waste your precious life reading posts here. Well, my question is still open for you kind of good-goody people “did you ever attempt preaching such nice words of wisdom to shiva-dweshis?” and I know the answer would be “no”. Naturally, because you can’t. Okay let me offer a deal – you erase shiva-dwesha tomorrow from the entire world, and I would stop writing day after tomorrow. You know, the way I know, that it is impossible, hence you should know, the way I know, that I cannot lay down my weapons aside and retire to woods. The battle shall continue!

            //When Krishna told Arjuna everything, He really told Everything. It is so simple. Except that one has to be capable reading and understanding plain Sanskrit what other qualification is necessary to understand Bhagavad Gita? Why any interpretation ? Interpolation/extrapolation?//

            Oh so you mean to say all the acharyas who “interpreted” bhagawad gita in “different ways” were also idiots. Shankara interpreted BG in the light of Advaitic teachings, Ramanuja in the light of sharanagati, Madhva too in the light of Bhakti. Abhinava Gupta in the light of shiva-tatwam…and so on…And all were idiots, if BG could have been understandable with plain sanskrit. Right?

            //I was very much agitated after reading your blogs. My attempt was to convince you so that no one else of my kind has to feel that kind of intense agitation and God forbid may be get swayed away from the spiritual path.//

            If someone is so weak to get swayed away from spiritual path reading someone’s write-ups, I would say that such person(s) should really get swayed away from Hinduism. Hinduism needs strong believers having firm faith. Loose minds are not needed. let them find solace in whatever other religion they find comfortable in. Let allah be their savior as in Islam there is only one god and no other devatas to subscribe to. 🙂

  18. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula

    Well, Bhagawad Gita itself solves both the problems posed (viz. Sabha vishwarupa and Utanka vishwarupa). let's see how :

    In Bhagawad Gita 11 chapter the Sri Bhagawan {i.e., Supreme Brahman i.e., Shiva through krishna :-)} spoke the following words:

    “sri bhagavan uvaacha:
    mayaa prasannena tavaarjunedam
    roopam param darshitamaatmayogaat
    tejomayam vishwamanantamaadhyam
    yanme twadanyena na drishtapoorvam |
    na vedayajnaadhyayanairna daanair
    na cha kriyaabhirna tapobhirugraih
    evam roopah shakya aham nriloke
    drashtum twadanyena kurupraveera |” (BG 11:47-48)
    “”The Holy One said, 'Pleased with thee, O Arjuna, I have, by my mystic power, shown thee this supreme form, full of glory, Universal, Infinite, Primeval, which hath been seen before by none save thee. Except by thee alone, hero of Kuru's race, I cannot be seen in this form in the world of men by any one else, (aided) even by the study of the Vedas and of sacrifices, by gifts, by actions, (or) by the severest austerities. Let no fear be thine, nor perplexity of mind at seeing this awful form of mine. Freed from fear with a joyful heart, thou again see Me assuming that other form.'”

    Here I have clubbed two BG verses but when separately seen each verse addresses a solution to each of the two problems that you had posted to me.

    1) Divine form of hastinapur Sabha was shown prior to BG incident hence the first part of above quoted BG verse which says “…which hath been seen before by none save thee…” rules out the claim that the form shown in Kuru-Sabha was same
    2) The latter verse which says “…Except by thee alone, hero of Kuru's race, I cannot be seen in this form in the world of men by any one else, (aided) even by the study of the Vedas and of sacrifices, by gifts, by actions, (or) by the severest austerities…” rules out the second claim that Utanka had seen the same form which was seen in BG incident. Utanka was a ascetic and had huge merit of penances to his credit but he couldn't have seen the same Mahakala form (as confimed in BG verse above) which was seen in Kurukshetra battlefield.

    On top of that we have already discussed the two evidences (summarized again below) which also support my point.
    1) in Hastinapur sabha krishna bestowed divine vision to only selective few, and hence they were able to “enjoy” that form ins tead of getting frightened. Whereas others who were not pious souls were not given divine vision, YET they could see his form but got frightened terribly. So, that form which coudl be seen with naked eyes cannot be Mahakala form of Gita episode.
    2) In Utanka's case – Firstly, Utanka was not given any divine sight. Secondly, was shown a form all-pervasive one and He was less frightened compared to Arjuna. Thirdly, that form's description also is very light-weight and doesn't depict it as the ghOra (terrible) kAla form which was described in the battlefield episode in MBH.

    However, unlike others who remain quick enough to conclude topics as “interpolations” just by seeing slight contradictions, I would want to do a “samanvaya” of these seemingly contradictory instances.

    Reply
  19. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula

    ============ SAMANVAYA ==============

    Although Vaishampayana's words (which said Utanka's vision of a cosmic form was same a sArjuna's case) contradicts many otehr portions of Mahabharata itself. Instead of rejecting those words as 'interpolations' I have a way to “reconcile (samanvaya)” them to keep both stories in sync.

    Vishwarupa has a property of displaying an 'all-pervasive' form. Vishnu surely pervades the entire creation, he is in the keyboard i'm typing from, he is in the monitor I am watching into. But my eyes cannot see his presence. I may not be wise enough to see his presence in dogs, women, old-men, rocks, stars, and planets. But when the divine sight is given, the “unseen, and invisible” all-pervading cosmic body of him becomes “seen and visible”. I would be able to see him standing frome arth to heaven passing through the firmament in between – hence I would say “he has three worlds in him”. I would be able to see his presence in everything and everything in him, hence I would say “all heads are your heads, you have a thousand feet” etc. Sunc kidn of forms Vishnu ahd shown many times. he had shown that to Dadhichi also (per Puranas) and in Vamana avatara also he pervaded the three worlds.

    This “all-pervasiveness” is a fundamental attribute of any divine form. So, yes, what form was displayed in Bhagawad Gita episode, has this fundamental-attribute and since vishnu is 'vishnu' because of all-pervasiveness, that was very well his form. BUT…that all-pervasive form of BG was not just that. It was possessed by the fierce energy and form of Mahadeva, hence the cool-and-comparatively-less-frightening expanded form of Vishnu was seen as the most-terrible-fear-inspiring-unbearable-form which frightened Arjuna kind of invincible warrior to death. To state in anotehr words – in cookery shows they prepare regular item and then garnish it from top and call it something else. The same way, the foundation was Vishnu's expansive form (all-pervading vaishnava form) which was garnished (possessed) by the terrible form of Mahakala.

    So, in this way this samamnvaya clarifies why vaishampayana had called Uttanka's sighted form (i.e., the original dish) as the same as what was seen by Arjuna (but omitted talking about the garnished cashew-nuts and corriander leaves).

    This is the best I can step down few levels to do a samanvaya and accept all these conflicting versions together. Below this I cannot step down because by lord Shiva's grace I am able to see only Mahadeva in Bhagawad Gita hence I am FULLY convinced that BG is all about the glories of the True “Nirguna” and “Advaitic” nature and glories of Mahadeva, and I cannot be convinced to accept anything otherwise whatsoever!

    Reply
  20. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula

    ======== MORE REGARDING MINOR CONTRADICTIONS ===================

    In Paushya Parva Utanka had already consumed Amrita in the form of dung and urine of a bull when Indra disguised as a man riding a bull (Airavata in disguise) met him. For this reason he remained unharmed when he went to the world of snakes to find Takshaka. And in the current story in context, utanka desired a boon (from Krishna) of “drinking water” and krishna requested Indra to give him amrita and Indra in guise of a naked-hunter urinates and asks him to drink which utanka not knowing the reality of India and not knowing that the urine of that man was amrita refuses to drink. Later krishna gives a boon to him saying whenever you feel thirsty you shall find clouds gathering above you and pouring water. When utanka had already consumed Amrita long back what was the reason that he felt thirsty? (FYI – Amrita once consumed makes one free of hunger, thirst, aging, disease, pain and sorrow etc). What made krishna think of giving him nectar once again? On similar lines, there Utanka calls krishna's (human) form as eternal, but no form is eternal as we know (However the blue prints of all names and forms are eternal and spring from Mahadeva from time to time at the beginning of creation), and it is known that Krishna's body afterd eath was cremated and burnt up.

    These are few such examples hand-picked to explain the point that there are such (minor and ignorable) contradictions in Mahabharata which we need to skip and just understand the central message of the story. It's futile to hang on to each and every sentence because people who do such things conclude things like “because maheshwara said to Arjuna 'O Arjuna ask me any boon EXCEPT immortality', maheshwara cannot grant moksha”.

    In one of your comment you had informed that you have 10 years of experience interacting in spiritual forums. You are surely senior than me in that spiritual study-experience, hence with your permission I would like to put some suggestion as an end note here.

    Scriptures are not discnnected books and no scripture is “independent”, one cannot just say “I would accept only Vedas and two epics and not others” if one wants to see a 360-degree view of sanatana dharma. Scriptures have all pieces scattered like a puzzle, we need to connect the dots to see the exact picture and if we keep clinging to few dots alone, then we would have only one or two pieces of the big-puzzle solved. My style is to “read-findConnections-link&Correlate-conclude” and hence from a holistic point of view what i see is Mahadeva is Mahadeva truly and his tatwam is visible in every scripture even in Bhagawad Gita and Vishwarupa also. So, let's not pull one piece of the puzzle and question what shape it is! Only when all dots are connected, we'll know what the shape it is.

    Reply
  21. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula

    The discussion ends here. No further extension please! I am flexible enough to give two options
    1) If you are in agreement – Thank you, now there is no need to discuss further, let's disperse happily
    2) If still disagree – very well – I do not work to “convert” anyone by force. We see things differently, our paths are different and can't converge at one point; hence in this case also let's disperse happily 🙂

    After knowing Bhagawan Mahadeva's nature, I cannot be convinced to accept him as a worthless fellow by any means (direct or indirect). He cannot be called a (absolutely) subordinate even if he is seen in one's body. He is subordinate (at translactional level), yet he is superior, he is the most junior, yet he is the ancient, and he is the middle-ones also. He acts as a devotee and again also becomes the object of their devotion. He is auspicious and yet terrible. He displays tamas and yet is satwik and lord of satwik qualities (satvAnAM patayE namO) too, and again he is the one who is beyond the three qualities. He exists as one among the devas sporting with them wearing unkempt dresses, and yet he is of the majestic beauty and is above all. He is within this universe and yet he surpasses the universe (vishvAdhikO rudrO maharshI), he shows hismelf as an idiot and yet he is the one who is the source of wisdom (dakshinamurty)….

    || namaH shivAya ||

    Regards

    Reply
  22. Indiaspirituality Amrut

    viShNu is different from caturbhuja viShNu is evident from viShNu purANa.

    Some related verses from viShNu purANa are VP 1.2.1-15.

    viShNu, as deity of preservation is different from viShNu, paramAtmAn, the cause of creation of trinity.

    During creation, preservation and destruction, Brahman (viShNu) divides itself, into 4 parts during creation, preservation and destruction. One common part is always kAla (time) without which no activity can be carried out.

    So viShNu, as deity of preservation) is just 1/4 part of viShNu, the brahman, which is unmanifested. VP 1.2.15 describes puruSa as the first form of parabrahma.

    VP 1.22.26-29 are also important.

    VP 1.22.30-33 describe in what parts parabrahman divides itself.

    VP 1.22.31: brahmA, daxa (daksha) etc prajApatigaNa, kAla and all living beings – all these are parts (vibhuti-s) of Sri hari are the cause of the creation of the world.

    VP 1.22.32: he dvija ! (twice born), viShNu, manu, etc, kAla and all beings – all these are the cause of sustenance of the worlds and are the parts (vibhuti-s) of bhagavAn viShNu

    VP 1.22.33: and rudra, kAla, death, etc and all jIva-s (beings) – all these four parts (vibhuti-s) are of SrI janArdana and are the cause of destruction (pralaya) [of the worlds].

    These verses indicate that

    brahmA, viShNu [deity of preservation] and rudra are parts (vibhuti-s) of the supreme lord, viShNu.
    brahmA, viShNu [deity of preservation] and rudra are not jIva-s as kAla i.e. time is not a person and the word 'all jIva-s' is separated by the word 'and' (ca – in sanskrit). If you take 'and' as just the addition of last word, then all three brahmA, viShNu and rudra become jiva-s, which is unwise to accept.

    VP 1.22.33 indicates that rudra is not a jiva, but a form or partial manifestation of the supreme brahman, commonly referred by the name 'viShNu'

    viShNu bhagavAn is the most nearest svarUpa of brahman

    viShNu purANa says,

    VP 1.22.61: all powerful viShNu is the para-svarUpa (higher form) of brahman and is manifested who is contemplated by yOgI-s before entering into yOga.

    VP 1.22.62: … O the fortunate one! the sarvabrahmamaya [viShNu bhagavAn] is the foremost among all the parASakti and is the most nearest mUrta-brahmasvarUpa (manifested form of brahman)

    bhAgavat purANa BP 8.7.29 defines Siva as a state of consciousness

    BP 8.7.29: sadyojAta etc five vedic mantras are represented by your five faces, from which 38 celebrated vedic mantra-s are created. When you arise beyond guNa-s and are established in your Self, then this state is called as 'Siva' (Siva-Akhyam). In reality, it is the same Self Effulgent paramArtha-tatva (supreme consciousness).

    Reply
  23. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula

    /VP 1.22.33 indicates that rudra is not a jiva, but a form or partial manifestation of the supreme brahman, commonly referred by the name 'viShNu'//

    Your other points are equally informative. However, this above one took my attention. This is true.

    Reply
  24. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula

    I have received your further comments. They are NOT different from what ISKCONites keep posing. I have explanations for all of them. All those verses quoted from BG by you intrinsically have Shiva as the essense, however the key is ” yah pashyati sah pashyati” and all those who have malice for mahadeva cannot understand him including you, so it's wise for me to keep quiet. I don't see any need to answer such any further. You wrote – next parts you would write tomorrow — save your energies now. What I had to say I had said, no more conversation i would entertain. You should know that I am famous for stopping conversations and censuring comments 🙂 I like spending my focus and energies on article writings instead.
    Well, Thanks for your time. You have already exceeded your welcome hours,

    bye!

    Reply
    1. Areem

      You are such a pussy for just shutting people up to prove your point. Why censor comments and stop conversations? Just because they contradict your beliefs? Lol. Here itself you have failed big time. If u have guts then allow others to speak and give your points as to why you disagree. Just shutting people off and censoring comments is just shameful. Most of your comments and arguments are pure rubbish. I’m an ardent Shiva devotee but i do not agree with your garbage or attitude. You are a pussy that’s all you are. Arrogant n gutless. Shame on you .

      Reply
      1. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula (Post author)

        Had I been gutless, the way you charged me, i would have deleted your this comment also! The comments that were received were all loose ISKONite type arguments, which I did not find any value to respond. If I get the commands from my inner self to analyze entire BG I’ll take all those arguments and clarify them then in my article. May be I should take it as a project in future. Well, I don’t know why I am explaining you. I don’t think I need to justify my actions to you. Did you go through the ‘terms and conditions’ page at the footer of this blog and read the comments policy? If not, read it.

        I am NOT here for explaining everything in comments, and have no time for lengthy arguments. So, if a debate is going nowhere, it is better to agree to disagree and shut it up. If you don’t like my attitude, please feel free to exit.

        Well, whether I am a pussy or gutless is something I would leave it on “Time”. Just remember my words carefully, which I declare with guts openly – “This world would see some works in future, which have never been seen from anybody else’s pen. Only thing I lack is time! Today you and people of your kind may be calling me whatever names, but you do not know the heights where my vision reaches. You do not know the amount of grace of Mahadeva that showers on my head. Wait for the right time in future and I shall show you what I see today!”

        Time would tell who is worthy of being ashamed!

        Reply
  25. adbhutam

    The Vishva rupa darshana, especially of the BG, is an aid for upāsana, as brought out by the next chapter. The Lord also says in the 11th ch. end that others too, if adequately devoted, can have the experience of the vishvarupa, the way Arjuna had, or the way it was shown to him. Vishvarupa is nothing but knowing that everything in creation is divine. That is an aid to the advaita jnana that liberates one. So, ultimately, the vishvarupa is an object of meditation.

    Reply
  26. Indiaspirituality Amrut

    (First part of comment was somehow not published. Apologies if more than one comments are received)

    Namaste,

    I agree with @adbhutam ji. kAla is not shown in BG 11.15. Infact bhagavAn in BG 11.32 says 'kAlosmi'. I am kAla.

    viShNu purANa, which is widely quoted by Sri Adi Sankara bhagavadpAda says that viShNu is paramAtmA. But this viShNu, janArdan, hari, etc, when eulogized as creator, preserver and destroyer is not caturbhuja viShNu i.e. a person. It is always brahman, the cause of trinity.

    The idea of the blogger in this post talks about the interpretation of the word 'ISA' in BG 11.15 as 'Siva seated in lap of brahmA' as interpreted by Sri rAmAnuja. Sri Adi Sankara's interpretation is a better one, as it translates 'ISA' into 'the Lord' and the statement translates into 'BrahmA, the lord, seated on Lotus'.

    smArta-s consider all 5 forms of ISvara as equally potent, as they are same as 'Brahman'. Hence rudra inside viShNu or viShNu inside rudra does not make one inferior or superior. Moral of the story is important than the story itself. Such episodes are created to instil bhakti in us and God himself teaches us the devotion. When Krishna worships Siva, we get Siva sahasranAma and vice versa. Stuti-s from bhAgavat purANa also induce bhakti in us. For the sake of bhakti and for one-pointedness, one form of ISvara is shown superior and all others as sub-ordinate.

    It is said in Mahabharata 13.14.183-184 that

    183 यॊ ऽसृजद दक्षिणाद अङ्गाद बरह्माणं लॊकसंभवम
    वामपार्श्वात तथा विष्णुं लॊकरक्षार्थम ईश्वरः
    युगान्ते चैव संप्राप्ते रुद्रम अङ्गात सृजत परभुः
    184 स रुद्रः संहरन कृत्स्नं जगत सथावरजङ्गमम
    कालॊ भूत्वा महातेजाः संवर्तक इवानलः

    Thou art he that hadst created from thy right side the Grandsire Brahma, the Creator of all things. Thou art he that hadst created from thy left side Vishnu for protecting the Creation. Thou art that puissant Lord who didst create Rudra when the end of the Yuga came and when the Creation was once more to be dissolved. That Rudra, who sprang from thee destroyed the Creation with all its mobile and immobile beings, assuming the form of Kala of great energy,…

    (condt)

    “The blessed Vishnu said, 'I saluted Mahadeva, saying,–Salutations to thee, O thou that art the eternal origin of all things. The Rishis say that thou art the Lord of the Vedas. The righteous say that thou art Penance, thou art Sattwa, thou art Rajas, thou art Tamas, and thou art Truth. Thou art Brahman, thou art Rudra …

    One section of Mahabharata (Gita) cannot contradict another section.

    Namah Shivay

    Reply
  27. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula

    [quote](First part of comment was somehow not published. Apologies if more than one comments are received)[unquote]

    I had received only one message prior to this which i had published above. I have checked the spam-box also to check if it went accidentally there, but didn't find any message there.

    Help me udnerstand – The current message of yours is what you were referring to as the 'first message'? If yes, then fine. If you are talking about some other missing message, then kindly re-post that since I don't have any clue where it would have gone.

    Reply
  28. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula

    You are right sir. One who fixes one's devotion on the sole object i.e., the Lord (krishna or vishnu for vishnu bhaktas, shiva for shiva bhaktas, Ambika for devi bhaktas and so on) and when their devotion crosses all the limits they would see their god in every form and every spec of matter. The entire universe remains nothing but only and only the brahman alone.

    It reminds me of a heart touching story of one nAyannAr (forgot his name but listened about that in Chaganti Kotesswara rao garu's pravachanams long back), hence felt to share that wonderful story here.

    He used to recite Rudram in his home and do abhishekam daily. He always remained puzzled thinking “what does it mean when it says namah pAryAya cha, i.e., “salutations to him who exists in flowing waters” and similarly other questions were raised in his mind. he personally wanted to experience isntead of theoretically reciting that hymn, and next day onwards he went to a river and standing immersed in it started chanting rudram and started thinking “Oh…wow…my lord is running in the form of the flow of water and touching me…embracing me from all around ..wow…what a nice experience I am feeling when the lord hismelf is touching me and flowing”….Thereafter everyday he would do the same..Slowly he then started realizing Rudra in everything, in trees and plants when he remembered namO vrukshebhyo harikeshebhyo….and slowly his devotion went to such levels that one thief stole something valuable from his hands and was running away, instead of he crying for help he cried out “namah chOryAya cha…”salutatiosn to rudra in the form of a thief” 🙂

    Chaganti garu then said – seeing that ripened stage of that devotee Shiva said, “this fellow doesn't see anything other than me, wow…let me grace him” and that nAyannar got liberated… 🙂

    That kind of levels when one reaches one need not see “literally” any viswarupa “figure” standing in front of his eyes. without any divine sight such people's normal eyes would become ripened enough to see divinity in every spec of immobile creation and every iota of mobile creation.

    Agreed that vishwarupa is an object of meditation in terms of Advaitic jnana which liberates.

    Reply
    1. Arun Subramaniyan

      Hi Santhosh,

      The Nayanmar you mentioned above is Sri Rudra Pasupathy Nayanmar. While explaining the greatness of Sri Rudram Chamamkam Kanchi Paramacharya said that Rudra Pasupathy Nayanmar attained liberation by chanting it everyday.

      Easwara tested the devotion of other Nayanmars severely with the exception of Rudra Pasu[athy nayanmar. No wonder Kaivalyopanishad recommends chanting Satarudriya as means for realization of Brahman.

      Regards
      Arun

      Reply
      1. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula (Post author)

        Thanks for reminding that great Nayanmar’s name, Arun. yes, now i recollect the same name being cited in that pravachanam.

        Thanks,
        Santosh

        Reply
  29. Indiaspirituality Amrut

    I had posted one message split into 2 comments as the message exceeded max size. It is not your fault. It is not your fault. It is a problem with blogger. Many times when you click the publish button, I do not get the confirmation that 'comment will be visible after approval'. In this case, I have to re paste the comment and in second time I receive the confirmation message. This is probably due to sing-in issues.

    In a rush, I didnt cared to read the confirmation and copy-pasted second part of message as new comment which got published. Since I didnt see it, I had to re-post it. Some times, due to links in the comment, blogger identifies as spam which has to be manually checked. To be safe I didnt add links to Mahabharata on sacred texts.

    I have posted 2 comments and both are visible 🙂

    Nothing to worry about.

    Reply
  30. Indiaspirituality Amrut

    I too agree that vishvarupa is an object of meditation.

    Thanks for sharing the story. It filled me with devotion.

    Reply
  31. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula

    Thanks Bro 🙂 You relieved me of tension. 🙂

    Reply
  32. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula

    When I listen to the pravachanams of Chaganti Koteswara Rao ji and Samaveda Shanmukha Sarma -Ji on any subject (even Vishnu's stories), it fills my eyes with tears. They are wonderful speakers of today's era. But unfortunately their talks are in Telugu only hence not understandable to others.

    Reply
  33. Indiaspirituality Amrut

    Certain anecdotes, certain explanation, use of words, etc loose their beauty when translated into other languages 🙂 Thats why local legends, local saints, hymns in local language is important. It blends with local culture. Poet Saints always compose devotional hymns in their mother tongue, not in a foreign language 🙂

    Reply
  34. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula

    I'm missing “like” or “+1” button here 🙂

    so true.

    Reply
  35. Shashwata Shasree

    Aren’t you forgetting something important? You didn’t yet write a refutation against the shiv purana being tamasic and also about the claims of vaikhanasa brahmin sect. Vaikanasa kalpasutra traces its origin direct from vedas. So you should write something about it also.

    Reply
    1. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula (Post author)

      I don’t forget anything important when it comes to Lord Shiva 🙂
      But I am not a full time blogger, my available time is limited, hence there would be delay, but never a stop. Request you to be patient because I am slow like a tortoise 🙂

      Reply
      1. Shashwata Shasree

        I hope you write about it soon. Because the supremacy of the lord also depends on the pouranic scriptures of Hinduism. Padma quotes that , according to Vrigu’s curse Shiva should not be worshiped by the Brahmans.And the Vishnu devotees use it as a weapon against the Shiva devotees. Because sattvic puran always rules over the tamasic Puranas quotes according to the scriptures.
        Another question is, were there any kind of vedic sect which promoted Rudra worshiping? I mean any clan, which belong to a specific vedic tradition devoted to the lord? Does such kind of vedic sector exist? Like the vaikanasa brahmins claims that they are following the vaikanas kalpasutra which belongs to krishna yajurveda taitterya sakha. They often use the quotes from either padmapurana or vagabat purana to establish their vedic supremacy.

        Reply
        1. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula (Post author)

          All vedic shakha people perform Rudra worshiping using many Vedic suktas especially the Sri Rudram. All smarthas who are all Vaidikas, do worship Shiva in their panchayatana puja method. Shiva worship was always and would always be an integral system of Vedic philosophy. We shouldn’t listen to what ‘false’ propaganda anti-shiva groups do.

          Reply
          1. Shashwata Shasree

            I need a total justification of that. Here Sri-rudra sukta isn’t the point. In a brahmins daily tradition we do follow the smarta rules. The question is whether there is a supreme sector or not who are fully devoted to the rudra, Like I myself, belong to samaveda koutama shakha and my guru belongs to varati sampradaya aka Yogiraj Shymacharan Lahiri. The guru lineage is associated with Shankaracharya’s advaita vedanta. But a vaikhanasa brahmin ( he belongs to ramanuja sect also knowns as vishishtadvaita bad ) did propose some scripture based quotes where bhagaban Shankaracharya was indicated as a preacher of tamas philosophy. When I showed him a quote based on the kurma purana purva vaga ( The quote was about Shankara being the avatar of Nillohit rudra of swetha Baraha kalpa and it is predicted that shri vagaban will establish dharma according to the vedanta philosophy) he refused it as it belonged to a rajasic purana. If those puranas were to be rejected then why did veda vyasa composed them on the first place, isn’t this a mockery of his compositions? I told him that vaikhanasa did confirmed the fact about the existence of nishkala brahman (attributeless brahman) then didn’t ramanuja opposed his own sampradaya or clan by only acknowledging the sakala braman as vishnu? He didn’t answer. And as per the scripture declares; if yagna bai vishnu then purusha bai rudra, meaning that rudra is superior since yagna is performed for that purusha only. So that is why I am requesting you to give a look into the vaikhanasa kalpasutra. May the lord bless those ignorant vaishnavas. He insulted my lord. Called me a worshipper of a disgusting phallus. A person who can not show honor to his own origin ( he did come from sperm) will never attain moksha as he insulted his own father.

          2. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula (Post author)

            I am afraid, I may not have a totally justifying answer w.r.t presence of vedic lineages at this point of time, because my knowledge on the lineages is not very concrete.
            In Ramayana and in Mahabharata Shiva used to be worshiped using Vedic path. In Puranas also Shiva’s worship with veda mantras are cited. Hence his worship is not recent, it’s ancient and has its origins in Vedas. In recent times, there is a sect called ‘srauta saivas’ who worship shiva using ‘srutis’ (hence named srauta’.

            I can understand your sentiments and can empathize with you on your devotion being hurt by the shiva opponents. There is no truth in labeling Puranas as satwik, Rajasic and Tamasik. I’ll surely prove such labelling wrong, but it would take time. Linga is not phallus, linga means symbol and it is the only symbol which denotes a nirguna brahman (because it has no shape like idols have), it is ellipsoidal which indicates it being infinite. It is a Vedic symbolism and hence cannot be called as disgusting. true that shiva-nindakas would never get moksha but I suggest not to be aggressive, as dealing one problem at a time would lead to progress, debating / arguing with them is going to ONLY kill your time, believe me!

            Can you please post the vaikhanasa kalpasutra book link if available on net?

  36. Shashwata Shasree

    http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia/srirangasri/archives/nov08/pdflBmp5PRZAW.pdf
    http://creative.sulekha.com/tantra-agama-part-three-vaikhanasa_591253_blog
    http://nitaaiveda.com/All_Scriptures_By_Acharyas/Dharma_Shastras/Vaikhanasa_Dharmasutra.htm
    http://www.indianetzone.com/55/vaikhanasa.htm
    http://www.salagram.net/sstp-AgamasSIV.html
    I read about vaikhanasa brahmins from this links. There is a link regarding the smartasuktam of Sri Vaikhanasa which is in devanagari sanskrit given in romanized form. I hope you can understand it. And padma quotes about the division among the 18 mahapuranas. Veda byas did have is own reasons. May be the classification was done according to the attributes of a person.As an example Tamas will follow tamas puranas to get rid of his tamasic attributes.Like the same rule of venom diminishing venom. I don’t know, it could be vysas intention. I know what the lingam is, but still as a form it is the linga of Mahadeva. This very lingam of the lord produced the seed of whole universe. So there is nothing to be ashamed of even if it is a phallus. This is the symbol of seed. From that very seed the world expanded. We may have different meaning when we analyze it grammatically but still that form has it’s own value. Well aside that, the lineages are based on vedic shakhas. Like Boudhyayana srouto suktam, manaba sroutasuktam of maitryani sakha etc. Brahmins has their own lineage of vedic scriptures. You can find about these sakhas in patanjal yoga vashyam.

    Reply
    1. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula (Post author)

      Thanks for the links. Shall have a look when time permits.

      Reply
  37. Shashwata Shasree

    A question: Where did the tarakbrahma nama of 4 yugas generated from? As far as I know Lord shiva announced those mantras in tantras.

    Reply
    1. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula (Post author)

      The very first reference occurs in Atharvasiras Upanishad where Bhagawan Rudra is called as Omkara and Taraka both. Then we have even puranas where that is mentioned and also in Tantras

      Reply
  38. Shashwata Shasree

    No not that. I am talking about those mantras mentioned in the lunar calendar. “narayana para veda narayana paraksara
    narayana para muktir narayana-para gatih….” (sayta yuga),
    rama narayanananta mukunda madhusudana
    krsna kesava kamsare hare vaikuntha vamana, (treta yuga),
    hare murare madhu-kaitabhare gopala govinda mukunda saure
    yajnesa narayana krsna visnos nirasrayam mam jagadisa raksha (dwapar yuga),
    hare krsna hare krsna krsna krsna hare hare
    hare rama hare rama rama rama hare hare
    (kali yuga).

    What is the reference of this names? I didn’t find any. Except the last one which is described in Radha Tantra. The goddess of that mantra is devi tripurasundari. The vaishnavas quote that it is from the kali santarana upanishad. But in there the mantra is written like this- Hare rama hare rama rama rama hare hare
    hare krsna hare krsna krsna krsna hare hare ( Sloka three of kali santarana). Therefore, what are the reference for the others? I read in ramatapani that the taraka brahma name is originally Om rang ramaya namah.

    Reply
    1. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula (Post author)

      Hare rama hare krishna mantra is mentioned in kalisantarana upanishad. Other references are not readily available on top of my mind. But they look familiar, may be i had read somewhere but can’t recollect the sources now.

      Reply
  39. Venkat Ram

    I am amazed by the time and energy being spent in writing blogs, defending sectarian interests and fighting for the supremacy of one form among the many forms of that Supreme Being. Even if Narayana or Shiva happen to see the mindless debates going on in their name they would probably have a hearty laugh at the predicament of human life wherein even gods are taken to divide people and create bitterness!!! From time immemorial, this debate of Shiva or Vishnu is going on. The very truth that there is and there has been debate on this subject shows that people have not understood the grand scheme created by Veda Vyasa for appealing to all type of people to follow the path of Dharma (where Dharma = God).

    It is absolutely ridiculous that some Vaishnava acharya accept Christ and Krishna to be same, says that Christians follow the teachings of Christ in its true spirit, but yet do not accept Shiva and Krishna to be same. For if he says that Christ is false in western countries and recommend that only Krishna is true, he would have been thrown out of the West and probably the organization he developed would have been wiped out in the bud. He was clever enough to just reconcile himself with Christ as he had an interest in growing the organization which is now spreading hatred in the name of Krishna Consciousness.

    I do not intend to waste my time in putting efforts to show the true color of these divisive fanatics. They have twisted and misinterpreted every Sanskrit verse to show that Vishnu or Krishna is supreme. Well, if that be the case, one can understand that Veda Vyasa is an avatar of Vishnu and whatever was written by him could very well be said to be written by Vishnu himself! Whatever supremacy of Shiva that has been said in the Scriptures is actually an avatar of Vishnu writing about the glories of Shiva!

    And to overcome this, these fanatics can go to the extent of claiming that wherever Shiva is praised as equal to Vishnu, it should only be an interpolation. Well there is no linguistic or literary support to prove these are interpolations. That way all the shaiva puranas could be treated as interpolations?! (into what?). There is one more method used by them namely calling these shaiva Puranas as tamasik. And this tamasik tag is given where? One of the most likely interpolations (agreed by many neutral authorities in Sanskrit grammar) in Padma Purana and other Vaishnava upa puranas.

    We should understand that Shiva Sahasranama finds place just after Vishnu Sahasranama in Mahabharata. All neutral scholars agree that it is not interpolated and both are genuine. This is sufficient to prove the mission of Veda Vyasa. That each one, by their own way, can and will reach the same God.

    Reply
    1. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula (Post author)

      Cannot agree more! What you said is all correct. Thank you!!

      Reply
    2. sohini

      good one really, and the throwing outta west dat’s the best part, these iskcon people are just imbeciles

      Reply
  40. Dr. Arijit Chatterjee

    ‘Vishwaroopa’ comes from the word ‘Vishnu’ which means ‘the cosmic form that is expanded throughout the unierse. So, Lord Krishna is the Supreme personality of Godhead but, not the Lord Shiva.

    Reply
    1. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula (Post author)

      Oh. Who told you that vishwarupa word has its origin in Vishnu?

      Reply
  41. Dr. Arijit Chatterjee

    ‘Vishwaroopa’ comes from the word ‘Vishnu’ which means ‘the cosmic form that is expanded throughout the universe. So, Lord Krishna is the Supreme personality of Godhead but, not the Lord Shiva.

    Reply
    1. sohini

      you idot, absolutely idiot, even if u wanna believe this then also u can NOT just deny that it is BHAGWAN SHIV who is called VISHWANATH. The whole world knows this except the iskcon people and the likes of those. If u can not understand what i say lemee explain u in short then, well even if u (nd the likes of u) wanna believe that vishnu=vishwaroop blah blah, then also u should NOT ever forget VISHWANATH is shiv himself. SO “Dr.” if u are able to do at least this simple sum then you get vishnu=vishwaroop (embodiment of vishwa) & shiv=vishwanath (nath or lord or god of vishwa/vishnu himself).
      he he he! take that

      Reply
  42. Dr. Arijit Chatterjee

    In Ramayana also, Hanuman was the incarnation of Lord Shiva and Rama was of Lord Vishnu. Hanuman served Lord Rama as his servant because he used to call Rama as ‘Prabhu’. So, again it is proved that Lord Krishna/Rama is the supreme personality of the Godhead but, not the Lord Shiva.

    Reply
    1. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula (Post author)

      Hahaha. So this is the great logic to prove who occupies what position?
      I’m not even getting any enthusiasm to reply to your point.
      If you want to believe in what you have said- pls go ahead and believe so.

      Reply
      1. sohini

        santosh ji lemme rply to this arijit on ur behalf. Well arijit have u ever read hanuman chalisa ? well if u had then u would not be asking this. b’coz the chalisa clearly says that hanuman is Shankar suvan meaning Son of shankar not an incarnation. many imbeciles translate suvan as ansh though. r u one of them? and also there are very strong stories stating hanuman as son of both shiv and mohini (incarnation of vishnu fyi). so if hanuman called ram prabhu then why does it matter as hanuman called his mother (mohini as ram) prabhu. Hope u get dat 😛 😛 😛
        and if u don’t get it then don’t worry, i have got more, here is 1 such- Krishna (ur fav god)
        could not even manage to have s child without shiv’s boon. hope u know this, well u will if u have read mahabharat ATLEAST. and rly i won’t AT ALL waste my PRECIOUS time in giving u the sources, u can search urself abhijit

        Reply
    2. Kamarup Kamakhya Devi

      Eyije Daktar Moshai! E to khubi sposhto je apni ISKCON ponthi. Tobe apnar lojja korlo na Brahmon hoye Shudro ke Guru mante? Apni shotti bolun to, apni ki kokhono Shastradhayon korechhen, na chiro jibon Shudro byektir lekha abol-tabol porechhen?

      Achha, ebar apnar comments gulon ektu dekhi:

      Ki proman achhe apnar kachhe? Kenoi ba amra apnar kotha ti ke gurutto debo?

      Bhul. Prothom kotha Balmiki Ramayone kothao lekha nei je Honuman Shiber Obotar. Eta ek bhranti apnara Boishnobder.

      Ditiyoto, apnara bolen je Mohadeb Bishnu Bhokto, eta ordho shotto. Purno shotto amra Shib Puraner Rudro Songhita te payi, jekhane sposhto kore lekha achhe je Shib Bishnu Bhokti kore bastobikotaye Bishnur Shib Bhokti ke reciprocate korchhen. E chhara, Mohabharote ullekhito achhe je Bishnur Bhokti te proshonno hoye Shib Bishnu ke bordan den je bhabe Bishnu Shib Bhokti koren, temni Shib Sri Ram ke dhyan korben.

      Jodi ekhono kono shondeho roye thake, tobe eyi bloger onnanno article gulon poren; Shontosh Babu prochur porimane Boidik Shlok quote korechhen je gulon eyi totther pushti kore je Mohadeb Porobrohmo.

      kamakhya kamasampanna kameshvari harapriye l
      kamana dehi me nityam kameshvari namastu te ll

      Reply
      1. sohini

        apni plz english ba hindi te type korun nahole bangalira bujhbe kintu onnora bujhbe na ar apni ja likhe6en sheta onnodero jana dorkar. jodiyo amar ei rply ta bangla te holei hobe karon eta shudhu apnar jonno, kintu arijit ke jeta likhechhen ota or prappo abong tar sathe aro iskcon ponthidero prappo

        Reply
        1. Kāmakalā Bhattācārya

          Janiben je Debi Durga Brohma, Bishnu, Moheshhor rupe srishti, sthiti, loye kortri; tini ekadosh Rudro, oshto Boshu, dadosh Adityo unoponchash Marutgon, Bishhodebotagon, Mitra, Borun, Indro, Ogni, Bayu, Oshhinikumardoye, Som, Surjo, Shondha ittadi Debota rupe eyi bishhobrohmande bichoron koren o Joggobhag bhokkhon koren. Poroma Prokriti eka o odditiya, kintu jogotproponche tini oneka hoye nanan Lilaye lipto hon. Tini Rudrer Uma, Mohakaler Kalika, Okkhobhher Tara, Kameshhorer Shoroshi, Troyomboker Bhuboneshhori, Dokkhinmurtir Bhoirobi, Kobondher Chhinnomosta, Moharudrer Bogolamukhi, Chondeshhorer Matongi, Bishnur Lokkhi, Boraher Bhudebi, Ramer Shita, Krishner Radha, Brohmar Shoroshhoti, Shurjer Shabitri, Ognir Shaha, Pitrigoner Shodha, Kartiker Shoshthi, Jorotkarur Monosha, Gonesher Boinayiki, Indrer Shochi, Boshishther Orundhoti, Otrir Onushuya, Kashyoper Oditi, Dokkher Proshuti, Jomer Mrittudebi, Chondrer Rohini, Pandobder Droupodi, Dhritorashtrer Gandhari, Nrishingher Naroshinghi, Shorobher Prottongira, Raboner Mondodori, Goutomer Ohilla. Tini Gonga, Jomuna, Dhumaboti, Olokkhi, Oshtobharjya, Shubhodra r Kalratri. Tini shodhobabesh dharini bidhoba Kattayoni, tini Ugrochonda, Bhodrokali, Mohalokkhi o Durga rupe Shiber obotar Mohishashur o Bishnur obotar Mohashingho dara sebita.

          Jye byekti Adyashokti ke erup chinta kore, Poroma Prokriti take Brohmobidda rupe shorbo totto prodan koren. Chinta korben na, Debi royechhen; tar ichhe chhara tar rohoshhomoye totto keo upolobdhi korte pare na. Tayi dibanishi Poromaprokriti ke dakun.

          Joy Ma!

          Reply
  43. sohini

    LOL KRISHNA HIMSELF FORGOT HIS OWN BHAGWAT GEETA ;
    These “ISKCON TYPE” krishna devotees even DO NOT know that THEIR KRISHNA himself (“THEIR” sooo called “SUPREME PERSONALITY OF GODHEAD” ) COULD NOT even repeat his GEETA PREACHINGS OR VISHWAROOP for the 2nd time b’coz of his (krishna’s) LACK OF POTENTIAL of getting into yogik state. So krishna could not even fulfill arjun’s request PROPERLY (yeah b’coz krishna came up with some other things dis time but krishna clearly admitted his failure of getting into yogik mode here).
    http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m14/m14016.htm

    Reply
  44. sohini

    lol KRISHNA HIMSELF FORGOT HIS OWN BHAGWAT GEETA ;
    These “ISKCON TYPE” krishna devotees even DO NOT know that THEIR KRISHNA himself (“THEIR” sooo called “SUPREME PERSONALITY OF GODHEAD” ) COULD NOT even repeat his GEETA PREACHINGS OR VISHWAROOP for the 2nd time b’coz of his (krishna’s) LACK OF POTENTIAL of getting into yogik state. So krishna could not even fulfill arjun’s request PROPERLY (yeah b’coz krishna came up with some other things dis time but krishna clearly admitted his failure of getting into yogik mode here).
    http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m14/m14016.htm

    Krishna could have worshipped YOGADHIPATI BHAGWAN SHIV to achieve some yogik power at ANY time 😉
    Reply ↓

    Reply
  45. sohini

    the reason of all these scriptures glorifying vishnu is that vishnu was not worshipped as much as shiv or revered as much as shiv in the eras before mahabharat and puranas i.e in the vedic era. so to PROMOTE vishnu vedvyas and some likes of him wrote down these scriptures praising vishnu. yet vedvyas (incarnation of vishnu himself) could not resist himself from praising bhagwan shiv

    Reply
  46. sohini

    little intelligence is always dangerous, that is the case for ISKCON people and the likes of them. If these people had ever tried to read the mahabharat fully and not ONLY the geeta portion then they would have known that BHAGWAN SHIV has been glorified much more than krishna in VEDVYAS MAHABHARAT itself. Without further ado here are the sources-
    http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m13/m13a017.htm
    http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m13/m13a018.htm

    Reply
  47. sohini

    krishna himself admitted tht had duryodhan made ashwathhama the cmmander in chief after the demise of dronacharya then krishna himself could Not save pandavasfrom the wrath of ashwathhama. This is b’coz ashwathhama was born from the wrath of shiv, a very little part of mahadev that is

    Reply
  48. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula (Post author)

    Dear friends,

    Let’s not fight with ISKONites the way they do mud slinging. I have stopped paying them back in their own coin because we need to keep scaling up always. And the more we study scriptures, the more open minded we become. This is the change that I am also developing for the past few years….

    Some Iskonites and some vaishnavas still fight at petty low levels, but the truth is that krishna/Vishnu is none other than Shiva’s own form. If Krishna/Vishnu is great, that greatness actually is Shiva’s because there is none other than Shiva in this entire universe, and there is no tatwam except Shiva-tatwam that pervades all other divinities. Vaishnavites would not understand this in this life, but I am sure that due to their constant Vishnu bhakti, Vishnu would show them right direction in future births and after many births they would surely understand the greatness of mahadeva.

    With that expectation or hope, I believe, it is good to leave these ISCONites to their own prArabdha (fate).

    hara hara mahadeva!

    Reply
  49. sohini

    you are ri8 santosh ji, we should not keep fighting over these supremacy stuffs, i don’t know if you have watched the serial “devon ke dev mahadev” or not, b’coz in that serial there was a dialogue that if you are a true devotee of one perticular god then you should not even put your time in defending your god as supreme, b’coz if you KNOW that YOUR god is supreme then your duty should be in putting your mind and soul onto ypur god only and not in any stupid supremacy debates, But kya kare 🙂 hum to shivji ke chhotemote and very Earthly bhakt hai, to ye sab debates mein jate rahete hain. Actually i want to believe in shiv bhagwan with logics (although i do know that devotion does not come with logics), even though these iskonites/any vaishnav/any other person/scripture try to and prove vishnu (or any other god for that case) superior to shivji, my devotion towards my mahadev shiv wont fluctuate for a little. yet i’ll never stop defending my shivji to be supreme 😉

    Reply
  50. vijay

    Could you please tell me..whether sati is human formor devine form..

    Reply
    1. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula (Post author)

      Puranic stories are NOT literal tales. Shiva is called ‘Bhava’ and ‘Bhava’ means ‘existence’ which is again called as ‘sat’ in vedas, – teherfore the female aspect of that Shiva who is ‘sat’ is said to be ‘sati’. her very name means ‘existence’ hence she is supreme being and never dies. Her disappearance is again allegorical and means that ‘the knowledge of knwoing the supreme reality’ disappeared from the world due to ignorance. Again Vishnu and Shiva establish the same knowledge via establishing the shakti peeThas.

      So, Sati is verily divine to answer you in one liner.

      Reply
  51. Giridhar S

    Well said. I am reading this blog for the first time. You have said it correctly.

    In fact, in the Mahabharata, we see that Arjuna forgets all this teaching of Bhagavad Gita and requests Shri Krishna to reveal that once more. Shri Krishna gets angry because He says that it was with great difficulty that He united with Ishwara to reveal those superhuman powers & form and & thus reveal that teaching. He expresses doubt whether He would be able to do it then, with the same intensity of consciousness. Having said this, He proceeds to do it once again and reveals what is called as ANUGITA in the Mahabharata.

    Also, in Mahabharata,Yudhishthira requests Bhishma to reveal VISHNU SAHASRANAMA & the latter reveals immediately but when requested to reveal SHIVA SAHASRANAMA, he accepts not only his inability for the same but also avers that it is ONLY Shri Krishna who can reveal That, for Shri Krishna is WHOLLY SURRENDERED TO SHRI RUDRA and because of that He rules the universe. The, Shri Krishna reveals the SHIVA SAHASRANAMA.

    As someone pointed out above, MAHAPERIAVAH has translated “PASHYAAMI YOGAM ISHWARAM” as – “See the Power of Ishwara”. He has also said that SHIVA is above the Trimurtis. This is EXACTLY what MahaSiddhar Thirumoolar has also revealed in THIRUMANTHIRAM.

    KALAGNI RUDRA is the Vishwaroopa !! The Mother,The Father!!

    Ammai Appane Pottri !!

    Reply
    1. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula (Post author)

      Dear Sri Giridhar,

      You might also be interested in the hidden secrets of Bhagawad Gita analysis articles.
      http://www.mahapashupatastra.com/2012/01/hidden-secrets-of-bhagawad-gita.html

      That has 10 parts, each part could be accessed by the hyperlinks at the beginning or end of the article. The above link is of the 1st part.

      Reply
  52. Anant

    The argument that Vishnu is supreme to Shiva or vice versa is nonsense and reduces Hinduism to the level of the Abrahamic religions. Such kind of arguments should be nipped in the bud. The vedas eulogise almost all aspects of divinity as Gods. There are several saints and great personalities who have not read a single line of shrutis and chanted the names of variety of Gods other than both Vishnu and Shiva to achieve spiritual progress. Morya Gosavi, Chatrapati Shivaji, Bajirao I, Ramakrishna Paramhansa etc….

    Reply
    1. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula (Post author)

      The arguments of Shiva vs. Vishnu etc., I can agree that they are at absolute level of not much use – but they are NOT nonsense! This has been sown into the soil of this land right from Ramanuja till Madhwa and followed by Chaitanya, and Prabhupada (recently) and is still continuing. If you can erase shiva hatred forever from this land, then let me know, i’ll stop my pen. Otherwise, i am not here to hear dry-sermons!

      Reply
    2. I.Banerjee

      The greatest contribution of Sri Ramakrishna to the modern world is his message of the harmony of religions. To Sri Ramakrishna all religions are the revelation of God in His diverse aspects to satisfy the manifold demands of human minds. Like different photographs of a building taken from different angles, different religions give us the pictures of one truth from different standpoints. They are not contradictory but complementary. Sri Ramakrishna faithfully practiced the spiritual disciplines of different religions and came to the realization that all of them lead to the same goal. Thus he declared, “As many faiths, so many paths.” The paths vary, but the goal remains the same. Harmony of religions is not uniformity; it is unity in diversity. It is not a fusion of religions, but a fellowship of religions based on their common goal — communion with God. This harmony is to be realized by deepening our individual God-consciousness. In the present-day world, threatened by nuclear war and torn by religious intolerance, Sri Ramakrishna’s message of harmony gives us hope and shows the way. May his life and teachings ever inspire us.

      Reply
  53. Prakash

    In Bhagvad Gita 11.33 Kaal Purush says…. “They are already killed by me….” and in Mahabharat as Lord Krishna Says “Rudra previously killed those enemies which you have killed….” So, Undoubtedly 11.33 Kaal Purush is Lord Shiva….

    Reply
    1. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula (Post author)

      I have already explained this point in my article on “Mahakala” in more depth.

      Reply
  54. krish

    Good interpretation! In fact i believe the same.
    Iskcon people are promoting huge discrimination through their false translations for selfish reasons.

    Reply
  55. Gawtam

    My dear Santosh,

    You are Shiva’s devotee , very nice, i adore such bhakti But many things are not well interpreted.

    For example the conclusion – Ravana was a devotee of Lord Siva, and he worshiped Siva.
    Now Rama prayed to Lord Shiva to take permission to kill Ravana. What kind of logic is this? What is that foolish interpretations. I already read Shiva gave Rama permission to kill Ravana thats why He was praying to Shiva.

    What you think , Shiva gave permission to kill his devotee? Who is that God who gives permission to kill his devotee? Of course, some will say, its leela/play of the lord, some will say Rama prayed to get strength etc etc.

    Again it goes again what the ancient Sages taught us!!

    but Chanakya pandita says “The scholar who has acquired knowledge by studying innumerable books without the blessings of a bonafide spiritual master does not shine in an assembly of truly learned men just as an illegitimate child is not honoured in society.”

    This is not going to be published , im sure but definitely i will wait for an answer of course, whenever you feel you can answer.

    Reply
    1. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula (Post author)

      You don’t have a proper estimate of your own levels of understanding of scriptures and I see you have great courage to give sermons to me; that too with a special note saying I might not publish your comment. O yes, why should I publish such basic levels of arguments/lectures which don’t even warrant a reply from me? But still i wish to publish to let you know that you need to do a lot of homework first before starting sermons to me.

      By the way, in the entire article there is no discussion about ravana, Rama, Shiva. Why are you putting your words in my mouth??

      Lastly, to receive proper answers from me, you should put proper questions. Otherwise there is no take away for you from here.

      Reply
    2. sharadadevi putra

      you fanatic… even daksha asked your vishnu to protect him from shiva. but vishnu was not able to protect him.

      Reply
      1. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula (षण्मातुरः) (Post author)

        Cool down buddy. It’s of no use arguing with their petty logics.

        Reply
  56. Gawtam

    |Therefore Sri Krishna did not say that he is Lord Shiva, he said he is that Rudra among the 11 Rudras whose name is ‘Shankara’.|

    Does that mean Rudra is different from Shiva and not of equal in power, strength, knowledge, renunciation, wealth ?

    Mahadeva – what is your translation of this word. One day, i attended a debate from a friend who is staunt Shiva Devotee, a scholar of Islam asked him, “how can your God(Shiva) cannot know and protect his wife (sati) from burning?”

    The argument smashed was a total shock , because it was correct. As metaphysics teaches that God knows and protect everyone. There is nothing that God cannot do and is not limited like humans are.

    Then i would be happy , you never get such arguments to explained.

    Reply
    1. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula (Post author)

      Damn! You think I would be made speechless by such silly basic questions? I don’t want to sound proud and pompous, but otherwise there is no one who would come on my behalf to tell you that these questions are just water balloons being thrown, and do not need a mahapashupatastra, rather a simple prick by a finger is enough.

      You want to know the hidden tatwam of “sati”? Search this site for keyword ‘sati’ I had replied to some seeker’s question and had elaborated on the entire daksha-yajna’s internal meaning.

      Show that to your shaivite friend too, who would next time have answer to share with his Muslim friend. And yes, you should be happy that I never get to reply such silly argument, it’s good for them, who would otherwise get ripped apart, if i remain in my full swing mood to thrash.

      I tolerated you more than enough. Pls don’t come back to post such silly queries.

      Reply
      1. Gawtam

        Santosh, i here again because, u don’t have the answer. I don’t need understanding from you because from historical records, we had better archaryas from you and we don’t need to learn from bogus and fools people in kalyyuga.

        Just prove me that Shiva has all the qualities of Bhagawan. My question is about metaphysics which mean God can do anything. You should be ready to accept that. Also if you don’t understand this, please don’t write nonsense.

        I’m sorry for ruining your mood, normally chanakya pandita do say ” Those who blasphame the vedas, comes to grief unnecessarily” … so take it normally

        And also, intellectual arrogance leads nowhere just like Balarama killed Romaharsana Suta by simply striking him with a Kusa straw (a blade of grass)

        Reply
        1. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula (Post author)

          OK, so please approach those historically better acharyas whom you venerate. Why eat my brains?

          You say you don’t need answers from me and the you ask questions to me. is your mind composed while you write what you write, or you are confused and have a habit of contradicting your own words?

          yes, Shiva has all the qualities of being “bhagavan”, it is you who has not studied anything outside the boundaries of your “bonafide sampradaya” hence you never know what the scriptures speak about him. And coming here to challenge me as though you have all the scriptures in your mind. Vedas call Rudra as ‘bhagavan’. Isn’t that answer enough? Puranas call him bhagavan. Now don’t ask me to quote, i am too lazy to make myself work for you kind of vaishnavites. So, kindly help yourself and locate the references.

          God can do anything, es, who denies? Who has blasphemed Vedas? And if you wanted to mean Bhagavatam with the word ‘veda’, for your kind information, your fav. Bhagavatam is NOT Veda, it is a bogus text.

          Do you know who taught me intellectual arrogance, whatever amount I have in me? it is you shiva-dweshis alone. And don’t justify balarama’s action there. He was proud and arrogant and wanted a learned brahmana to salute him, and when not done he killed him. Mind you, he went for pilgrimage to get rid of that sin. So, it WAS a SIN that he had committed in pride. We have his own brotehr Krishna who tolerated a brahmana Durvasa’s most mischievous activities with patience and peacefulness. Why don’t you take Krishna as a role model there? It speaks about your inclinations!

          Reply
        2. sharadadevi putra

          chapter of shiva -gita gives all your answers. it proves by giving vishwaroopa darshana.

          Reply
    2. sharadadevi putra

      because it was her sacrifice and shiva want her to do it. it is well explained in shiva purana about why she has done sacrifices. you question looks like how krishna can have 16000 wives.okay by any chance your vishnu also present before the burning of Sati. then what he was doing. vishnu would have protected her.
      you want meaning of Mahadeva–> God of Gods. deep–> he is the supreme personality of God heads.

      Reply
  57. Gawtam

    Again, arrogance … You are proving yourself better than these Archaryas, then why do you go and spread this to the world…. You simply cannot do it and you will never be able.

    When sinful people of kalyyug proves to be better than the ancient sages and gives their explanation , it irritates me a lot.. because in order to comment on the vedas, you need to be authorised to do so.

    If Rudra , is bhagawan, why was he born from Bramha? Why Mahadeva cut off his own son’s head Ganesha? Bhagawan knows everything , so who can Bhagawan not recognise his own son?

    Bhagavatam is purana , historical records just like in this world we have the guinness world records. People who are logical understand this. IF you tell me this is story, then you must be able to reason that “the person who wrote the bhagvatam must have thought about it through every angle”

    Shiva Loka is not the highest planet in the Surya Siddanta as this contradicts all the written works you have explained.

    Anyone who kills a brahmana is considered the most sinful. God even cannot escape this law which He has made. So, this is called metaphysics !!! don’t you understand

    Finally, the invocation of the upanishad “om purna idam” everything comes from the absolute truth, because He is full and complete in himself. There is nothing missing in the Absolute Truth.

    Once , arguments and doubts begins, this invocation smashes it!!

    Reply
    1. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula (Post author)

      Mr. Gawtam -Your so called ‘acharyas’ were also Kaliyuga born people.
      Your logic that if rudra is born from brahma he cannot be bhagawan is ABSURD one. Krishna was born from Devaki/vasudeva, why is he bhagawan? Rama was born from Dasaratha, why is he bhagawan?

      I have no time to answer your STUPID talks line by line. Pls spare this space from your SPAM. Go elsewhere and shout about me. Crib about me. i have no fear.

      Reply
      1. vishnu bhakt

        Ram and Krishna were the incarnations of lord Vishnu can you plz tell how lord Vishnu was born.Got stuck right?? The Ganga which lord Shiva holds in his head has originally originated from the feet of lord Vishnu,is anger the quality of supreme lord,is running from your own devotee the quality of supreme lord,lord Shiva and Lord Vishnu are non-different.lord Shiva is lord Vishnu tamasic form and lord Shiva himself said to goddess parvati that one who thinks anyone is supreme to lord Vishnu is pasandi and Lord Shiva ejaculated on seeing the form of mohini

        Reply
        1. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula (षण्मातुरः) (Post author)

          Answer is – Vishnu was born from Shiva’s left side. Got shocked right?
          The Ganga which originated from Vishnu, before that She was the daughter of Himavan and married Shiva. Again got shocked right?
          Anger should be the quality of Supreme Lord without which the world wouldn’t function. Shocked?
          Running from one’s devotee is the quality of Supreme Lord alone, otherwise a common man would kill that devotee. Didn’t get this?
          Mohini is verily Uma herself do you know this, Mr. Pasandi? Vishnu meditated on Maheshvari and assumed her form. Did you know this?

          What you have in your arsenal is just sticks and stones. Don’t venture into battle grounds where divine missiles are being used, kid!

          Reply
        2. sharadadevi putra

          you idiot…vishnu took the shape of mohini under the grace of uma maheshwari herself… so basically uma herself came. what present inside mohini is the same uma maheshwari….

          Reply
    2. Kāmakalā Bhattācārya

      One of the criterion that determines one’s authority to comment upon Śāstras is that one should be well versed in Śāstras and should have done Śāstrādhyāyanam under the tutelage of Śrī Guru. Tell us about yourself and your authority.

      Before performing the act of creation, Prajāpati Brahmā had performed severe penances to have Darśanam of Maheśvara. Appeased, Sadāśiva appeared before Virińci. As a boon, Padmayoni asked Pīņākapāņi to incarnate as his son. At this, Śrīman Mahādeva declared “A part of me would manifest from your forehead, and shall be renowned by the name “Rudra”. He would reside at Kailāśa and would bear a form similar to mine.”
      Now you know the secret of Rudra’s birth, as documented in Śiva Purāņa’s Rudra Samhitā. Śiva incarnated as Rudra just like Vişņu incarnated as Rāmacańdra and Kālikā incarnated as Dākşāyanī and Girisutā.
      Now, I would like to counter question you; we know that Devī Mahişamardinī’s Āvirbhāva occured from the combined Cidāgnī of all Devas, including Ińdra, Agni and Vāyu. So by Gaudiya Vaişņava “logic”, shouldn’t we consider Devī Durgā to be inferior to Ińdra?

      There are various versions of Gaņeşa’s birth. The one you are speaking of is from Śiva Purāņa. Let us see some other versions:-

      Padma Purāņa:
      Once while Umā was sitting on Mańdākinī’s shore, She mould idol of a child with elephant’s head. However, Devī cast it into the river before returning home. Mahādeva found it, performed Prāņa Pratişțhā, and the idol came to life. The child was given numerous names like Vināyaka and Heremba, but is popularly known as Gaņeşa.

      Śākta Mahābhāgavatam:
      Umā had an elephant-headed servant called Mālinī. Once Mālinī drank water in which Girijā had cast Her menstrual fluids, and as a result Mālinī got pregnant. She gave birth to a son, who had head of an elephant, and became renowned as Gaņeşa.

      Lińga Purāņa:
      When Asuras once wrecked havoc at Amarāvatī, Devas approached Girīśa for redemption. From Maheśvara’s third eye sprang forth His elephant headed incarmation, Gaņeşa, and helped Devas to curb the pride of Asuras.

      Mārkaņđeya Purāņa:
      Gaņeşa was born from Rudra’s laughter. In His jocular mood, Mahādeva gave Gaņeşa head of an elephant and a protruding belly.

      The aforementioned versions illustrate that Hara-Gaurī are always aware about Gaņeşa. That is why he is born in different ways in different Kalpas. Then why beheading?
      The answer is, this particular event, well scripted by Hara-Gaurī, was to curb the pride of Devas and Śivagaņas. Even a child can shatter your ego into a thousand pieces, when your pride reaches its pinnacle. The wrath of Caņđikā and the devastation caused by Her was a part of Devī’s Līlā.
      Apart from that, according to Gaņeşa Purāņa, Mahādeva had once punished Sūrya by slaying him for killing two of His Asura devotees for no reason. As a result, Sūrya’s father Kaśyapamuni in his anger cursed Maheśvara to kill His own son one day. Only if he knew that Tripurāńtaka had killed only the pride of Sūryadeva. But nevertheless, He accepted the Brahmin’s curse.

      On a contrast, it is Śrīmad Devī Bhāgavata Mahāpurāņa which is the real Bhāgavata Śāstra authored by Vyāsamuni and satisfies all Lakşaņas of Bhāgavata Śāstra. The Vaişņava Bhāgavatam, it appears, came into existence during Madhvācārya’s time. No wonder what can’t Madhva Brahmins do, if they can make humungous interpolations in Purāņas.

      True, because Highest Loka is known as Maņidvīpa, the Empire of Śrīmad Bhuvaneśvarī. She resides here in the Imperial Palace of Cińtāmaņigřha, situated in the Bindu of the Imperial Capital City of Śrīpura, where Ādyāśaktī is ever enthroned on Pańcapretāsana (Has Brahmā, Vişņu, Rudra, Maheśvara and Sadāśiva as legs, while Paramaśiva is plank).

      As Devī Mahişamardinī declares in Řgveda, Atharvaveda and Lakşmī Tańtra, it is She who exists as Brahmā, Vişņu, Rudra, all Prajāpatis,11 Rudragaņas, 8 Vasus, 12 Ādityas, 49 Mārūtagaņas, Ińdra, Agni, Vāyū, Sūrya, Soma, Yama, Kāla, Tvaşțār, Bhaga and Pūşa.
      She is Parabrahman and Māyā, Vidyā and Avidyā, Ānańda and Anānańda, Sat and Asat, Puruşa and Prakřti, Śūņya and Aśūņya, Veda and Aveda, Pańcabhūtas and Turīya. So verily, She is complete, Absolute Truth and self sufficient.

      etat sampradānāya om krīm śrīmad dakşiņākālikāyē nama: ll

      Reply
      1. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula (Post author)

        You have lot of patience even to explain to such idiotic questions, my _/|\_

        Reply
        1. Kāmakalā Bhattācārya

          Well, is that a compliment or an insult? 😀

          Jokes apart, I believe that teenagers are to be dealt with patience.
          A teenager by nature is rebel; so he forgets that mommy knows all.

          śrī śrī durgā devyayē nama: ll

          Reply
          1. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula (Post author)

            Of course compliment only 🙂

            I agree! Youngsters have lot of entropy in them, and remain rebellious. I too was rebellious few years ago. Now taking things a bit with ease, as i want to focus on the long term goals rather these short term disturbances.

            Actually if this fellow goes through the articles in detail, he would get most of his doubts clarified, but he being young has no time, he has a boiling blood. Time would surely explain him the reality. He need to come out of his well of gaudiya books and see the oceanic world of scriptures. Till then he would keep blabbering like a frog which considers its well as its world.

      2. Prabhakar

        Namaste madam kamakala ji,

        I think you have a great knowledge on Shaktism, hence wished to seek one long standing question’s answer from you.

        I wish to know which Purana / scripture mentions the story of Devi Pratyangira’s manifestation? (the usual story that I read on internet is about Sharabha’s advent where Pratyangira manifests from his wings. Where is this story from?).

        Would be thankful if you could kindly enlighten me if you know this.

        Regards
        Prabhakar

        Reply
        1. Kāmakalā Bhattācārya

          Thanks for your considering me worth of helping you, but I believe that the knowledge I could gain from Śrī Guru, is 1/4th of the drop of ocean. Also, it is Śrī Śrī Ugra Tārā Devī, who is Nīlasarasvatī, who has chosen me to be Her instrument.

          Well, the Āvirbhāva of Śrī Śrī Pratyańgirā Devī from Śarabha’s wing is well detailed in Lińga Purāņa. In Śākta texts like Kālikā Purāņa, Śarabha’s Āvirbhāva occurs to slay Yajna Varāha, and at that event Śūlinī Durgā and Pratyańgirā Devī aren’t involved.

          I hope the question has been duly answered.

          śrī śrī vişņuvakşavilāsinyē nama: ll

          Reply
          1. Prabhakar

            namaste madam kamakala ji,

            Thanks for your kind reply. based on your guidance, i did a search in linga purana, but linga purana too mentions sharabha w.r.t veerabhadra only. I couldn’t find any reference (even name) of pratyangira there.

            if possible, would be grateful if u could kindly share the verses if you have them handy?

            Warm regards, Prabhakar

          2. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula (षण्मातुरः) (Post author)

            Dear Prabhakar,

            She might be busy, so thought to give my inputs meanwhile. She might surely know the references from some other texts (if you say in linga purana she isn’t there) as she is well learned in shakta philosophy.

            Well, to my knowledge Pratyangira is not described ‘explicitly’ in maha puranas. I am not sure about the upa-puranas though. I have read several times on internet that pratyangira is mentioned in Markandeya Purana, but I couldn’t locate her story in that Purana also. There could be some recessions of these Puranas where she might be there, but the versions that I referred online, I couldn’t locate.

            However, do not get disheartened, as her “explicit” mention or no mention is not going to make her a myth. She is actually a vedic deity, and very secret shakti. She si otherwise called as ‘atharvana bhadrakali’ and is the chief shakti behind the ‘atharvana angirasa’ rites of atharvana veda. Sharabha is true as he is described in Puranas, so how can his implicit shakti be a myth? When sharabha is mentioned, it is implicit that his shakti is with him. His shakti is called as ‘pratyangira’. So, whether explicitly Puranas state or not is secondary, implicitly she is the energy of sharabha. She is also said to be the same goddess who is hailed as ‘nikumbhila devi’ and indrajeet would have become unconquerable had his sacrifice to her was not interrupted.

            In shakta mantrashastra pratyangira is very much worshiped. So, there is no doubt about her existence. It may also hapen that she is a hidden power, not a puranic figure to see/hear thru eyes, but the ferocious form of shakti many be called by that name. So, only thing is the story of her manifestation is not available to us in the accessible versions of Puranas. Let’s see when and how that mother helps you find her whereabouts in Puranas 🙂

        2. Kāmakalā Bhattācārya

          Dear Prabhakar Jeu,

          I apologise for my late response since for the last two days I was involved in making preparations for the monthly Kālī Pūjā observed at my residence on every Amāvasyā. Now that the Aşțhaprahar Akhaņđa Caņđipāțh and Mahāpūjā of Śrīmad Dakşiņā Kālikā for Pauş Amāvasyā have been concluded, I am here at your service.

          As you said, there is no mention of Śrī Śrī Pratyańgirā Devī in Lińga Purāņa. Well, I gave you the wrong information purposefully.
          It appears that you asked this question after reading Śrī Vaişņava version of “Vedāńta Kathāmřta” published in Nārāyaņāstra Blog. But there are certain circumstances that are to be understood:

          1. The hypothesis of the author(s) is entirely based on self study of Śāstras. As a popular Bengali proverb goes, such scenario in which Śāstras are handed to ignorant folk is as good as hand a sword to a monkey.
          2. Whatever they post is not verified by any authorised Śrī Vaişņava institute. So you are free to agree to disagree; you don’t have any compulsion to agree with them. Let their words enter your left ear and exit from the right one.
          3. Can’t say about other schools, but Gaudiya Vaişņavism (claims to be a part of Brahma Sampradāya) rejects Parokşa (esoteric/symbolic) interpretation of Śāstras, which in their words is “Gauņa Vřtti”.

          Considering the above conditions, if you are seeking my help after being influenced by them, then with my due apology, I can’t help you.

          Coming to Devī Pratyańgirā, I guess Śrīmān Santosh has already given a brief description of Her.
          Devī Pratyańgirā is also known as Bhadrakālī and Nārasińhī; Her Bhairava is known as Śarabha, who is an incarnation of Śiva.
          First know who Śiva is.

          Paramā Prakřti is Turīya and Nirguņā. However, She becomes Triguņātmikā and sports the threefold Bhavalīlā of  Śřşțhi, Sthiti and Laya.
          In former times, when Devī noticed Mahāśūņya,  She assumed three forms- Mahākālī, Mahālakşmī and Mahāsarasvatī. These three Devīs further assumed a male and a female form each-

          1. Mahākālī: Śiva and Sarasvatī
          2. Mahālakşmī: Brahmā and Lakşmī
          3. Mahāsarasvatī: Vişņu and Umā.

          Sarasvatī paired with Brahmā, Lakşmī paired with Vişņu and Umā paired with Śiva.
          Thereafter, Brahmā with Sarasvatī created an egg while Śiva with Umā split it; from this cosmic egg, manifested the Pańcabhūtātmaka Samsāra. Vişņu with Lakşmī is sustaining it and later on, Śiva with Umā would dissolve it.

          So know this, that Śiva is Mahākālī while Umā is Mahāsarasvatī. When Śivarūpi Mahākālī manifests as Śarabha, Umārūpi Mahāsarasvatī manifests as Pratyańgirā.
          In Saptaśatī, Mahākālī is Tāmasi Devī Yoganidrā, who slew Asuras Madhu and Kaițabha in former times.
          Madhu and Kaițabha, bestial creatures, who recognize no higher reality; they are violent, intent on gratifying their base instincts, often expressed through the thrill of intimidation or brute force. Born of Vişņu’s ear wax, they seek to destroy Brahmā for no reason.
          Brahmā thus invokes Yoganidrārupinī Mahākālī, requesting Her to withdraw Her magic spell on Vişņu who is reclining on the Ekārņava ocean after Pralaya, so that the later can slay Madhu and Kaițabha.
          Once Yoganidrā withdraws and Vişņu awakens, He wages a war againt the two demons; however, Vişņu fails to defeat Madhu and Kaițabha and desires to grant boons to them. In their physical strength, Madhu and Kaițabha grow exceedingly vainglorious and underestimate their rival; they decide to grant boons to Vişņu. Grabbing the opurtunity, Vişņu demands that may the two demons die at His hands. They realise Vişņu’s foulplay but too late; so they try one more trick- they request Vişņu to slay them at a place which isn’t submerged under water, and hence Vişņu places them on His lap and behead them. So Madhu and Kaițabha’s own arrogance becomes their undoing.

          Comparing Śarabha’s story with that of Yoganidrā, we see that Narasińha is the beast here, playing the same role as Madhu and Kaițabha. Know that Yoganidrā is Mahākālī, and She who is Mahākālī, is also Mahādeva. He as Śarabha has two wings, each of which are Bhadrakālī and Pratyańgirā. Bhadrakālī is verily Mahālakşmī, and Pratyańgirā is Mahāsarasvatī Herself. Śarabha has thousand arms, who are verily the Koțiyoginis. Eight tusks and eight legs are verily Aşțha Bhairavas and Aşțha Mātřkās.

          In Kālikā Purāņa, Śarabha slays Varāha and Narasińha together, and is assisted by Matsyarūpi Vişņu in His task. So know Śarabha is Caņđirūpiņī Durgā while Matsya is Kula Kuņđalinirūpiņī Kālikā.
          In Kālikā Purāņa, Mahādeva visits Varāha after the later has slain Hiraņyanetra and rescued Bhūdevī. He asks Varāha to quit the boar form and merge back into Ramāpati Vişņu. Varāha gives His word to “Parampūjya” Maheśvara that he would execute His orders.
          However, Varāha later ignores Paśupati’s orders and enjoys Bhūdevī to His heart’s content, causing immemse pain to Her by digging His tusks and hooves into Her. They have several boar sons who wreck havoc in Svarga, Martya and Pātāla.
          Everyone seek Vāsudeva’s shelter for redemption, and the later leads them to Mahādeva, who takes away the strength of all Devas and becomes Śarabha. Vişņu in the form of Matsya accompanies Him and they face Varāha and His sons. A fierce battle is fought, in which all of Varāha and Bhūdevī’s sons are slain. At this point, Narasińha manifests from Varāha’s body and begins to fight with Śarabha and Matsya. Later, Śarabha smites both and puts an end on them.

          So you see, here Varāha and Narasińha are not just Madhu and Kaițabha, but also Mahişāsura, Śumbha and Niśumbha. Śarabha is Durgā in Her three forms- Mahākālī (Śiva), Mahālakşmī (Bhadrakālī) and Mahāsarasvatī (Pratyańgirā).

          Mahişāsura is monumental rage, that is born of lust, greed, pride, envy and self-hatred and attacks anyone and destroys everything in the process. In Saptaśatī, Mahişāsura upsurps Ińdra’s throne, attacks Caņđikā, avenges the cold-blooded murder of His army, wrecks havoc on earth and changes forms instead of revealing the real “Him”. To counter Him, the Āvirbhāva of Durgārūpiņī Mahālakşmī is important.

          On the other hand, Śumbha and Niśumbha are vanity, frustration and possessiveness. In Saptaśatī, Śumbha and Niśumbha confiscate the best possesions of all Devas, and when their minions called Caņđa and Muņda speak of the “gem” among women residing in Himālaya and that all their treasuries are of no use if they do not possess this woman (Devī Caņđikā), their lust and vanity are aroused. They send a polite orator called Sugrīva to convince that “gem” among women to marry Śumbha. When Devī declines the offer, that “gem” among women becomes a “vile” women and Śumbha wages war against Her.
          To counter them, the Āvirbhāva of Kauśikīrūpiņī Mahāsarasvatī is important.

          Varāha and Narasińha are afflicted with ignorance (like Madhu-Kaițabha), rage (like Mahişāsura), lust, vanity and frustration (like Śumbha-Niśumbha). They can be conquered only by cunningness that decieves (Mahākālī), rage that is under control (Mahālākşmī) and consciousness that is tranquil (Mahāsarasvatī). The embodiment of these three is Śrī Śrī Daśabhujā Durgā, who is to be propitiated with Ugracaņđādi Aşțhaśaktis. She manifested as Śarabha and smote Varāha and Narasińha.

          (On a side note, in Skańda Purāņa, Mahişāsura assumes forms of a boar, a lion and an elephant, and the word “Śarabha” itself means “elephant-slaying giant”.)

          Let me know if you too accept “Mukhya” Vřtti and reject “Gauņa” Vřtti like Gaudiya Vaişņavas. If yes, then there is no mention of Pratyańgirā and Bhadrakālī in any Purāņa. If yes, then Śarabha Upaņişad, Śiva Purāņa, Lińga Purāņa, Skańda Purāņa and Břhannańdikeśvara Purāņa have hidden referrence of Pratyańgirā and Bhadrakālī. All you need is the vision to see them.

          She who is Gāyatrī in Vedas, has become Caņđī in Tańtras; for it is Ādyāśakti who has become Brahmā, Vişņu, Maheśa, 11 Rudras, 8 Vasus, 12 Ādityas, 49 Mārutas, 33 Viśvadevas, Ińdra, Agni, Vāyu, Aśvini twins, Soma, Sūrya and all Prajāpatis.
          Cotton yarn can be woven into fabric; however, the essence remains same although form changes.

          I hope your query has been dully addressed.

          śrī śrī mahākālanitambhinyē nama: ll

          Reply
          1. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula (षण्मातुरः) (Post author)

            Excellently explained.

          2. Prabhakar

            Million Thanks to you and also to Santosh ji. These answers are indeed illuminating. No, I’m not a follower of narayanastra bloggers, nor do I get influenced by the trash that they host on their site. I wanted to locate the references on my own interest for my learning. You both helped me with great insights. Thank you.

        3. The credit goes to Ādyāśakti Mahāmāyā. I was just doing my duty.

          As Devī declares in Řgveda, She is The Imperial Empress of all worlds, foremost among those whom Yajamānas offer Havi during Yajna, one who beget Samsāra, bestower of prosperity upon Upāsakas and one who resides in the intellect of Sādhakas.
          Person who realises that yearns for Brahmavidyā and subsequently attains cidānańda.

          śrī śrī aticaņđikāyē nama: ll

          Reply
    3. sharadadevi putra

      krishna is born from devaki and nanda.. then why is he bhagavan?

      Reply
  58. Kāmakalā Bhattācārya

    A Sādhaka/Sādhikā, who understands the Tātvik aspects of Hara-Gaurī and acknowledges the six-fold interpretations of Śāstras, is expected to become father/mother-figure to anyone who takes interest in Śāstras; even if that “anyone” is a person brainwashed by ISKCON. Such a person is like a teenager, who rebels and thinks of an enemy of his mother.
    At such circumstances, “mommy” has to come down at “teenager’s” level to explain him thing or two in his own language (Pun intended). 😀

    śrī śrī śokarahitāyē nama: ll

    Reply
    1. Gawtam

      Exactly, tell me who is your mother and who is your father? Who is brainwashed by iskcon? A vaishnava is one who worship Vishnu , it does not mean he/she has to be in iskcon to be Vaishnava.

      Well, Santosh say’s Shiva cut off his son Ganesha because it was lila of Mahadeva. Then we reason again, why Parvati whom you consider equal to God, cannot save his son at the time Mahadeva tried to behead Ganesha?
      Who is going to believe in this nonsense?

      By telling me it is lila, you limit God power. and you don’t understand the topic of GOD

      Again we reason, find my answers and come back!!! Please if you don’t understand the topic of God, don’t write nonsense.

      Reply
      1. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula (षण्मातुरः) (Post author)

        Gawtam,

        if you don’t understand the hidden tatwam of Shiva-Shakti leela, please don’t post nonsense. I have been telling you MULTIPLE times that what you have been posting so far as questions/arguments are all ABSURD. Please learn that when I’m saying your arguments to be absurd and childish these many times, definitely there must be a reason behind it.

        You are NOT eligible enough to be taught the hidden tAtwika-rahasya-s behind these stories, because you have NOT matured enough to know. You are an ‘anAdhikArI’. Hence I had ignored your comments. Henceforth, your nonsense is simply going to be trashed without further leniency. Here for the last time, let me teach what that story is all about. By the way, learn from me today that to understand shiva-shakti leela, it is not the cup of tea for even the acharyas of vaishnavite schools, you are still simply a tiny student of that school (I’m not trying to insult you / your acharyas, just telling the fact in blunt words). Therefore, when some shaivite/shakta story looks to you as meaningless, do more sadhana, pray to Krishna asking him to explain it. Only tapas/sadhana/god’s grace can alone open you to the divine secrets of shiva-shakti tatwam.

        You questioned Sati’s demise related story, I had asked you to search this blog where in reply to a sincere seeker’s question, i had explained the tAtwika-rahasya of that story. You didn’t do that homework, you again came back with same nonsense multiple times. Now your highness is questioning Ganehsa’s head replacement story. So, here is the explanation (only if you are open enough to learn it, but I’m sure your intentions are to question, and not learn, so I’m in a way wasting my time, but for last one attempt let me fool myself by thinking i’m helping you learn).

        There are three secrets here.
        First, Ganesha is born from Uma who is the prakritI and without purusha lighting up the prakriti, it cannot have chaitanya. Hence Ganesha is said to be killed, and then Shiva infuses prANa in him, which means, in the creation of Prakriti (Uma), shiva entered as the life force (chaitanya), hence after that incident, Ganesha is a symbolism of prakriti-purusha’s creation. Everything in thus universe manifests from prakriti and Purusha, and hence this is just a vedantic symbolism taught in that leela. Now, Secondly, why does one need to put elephant head to boy ganesha and not any other being’s head? There is another rahasya therein – Uma is actually parA-prakritI which in other words is identical with Brahman. Therefore Ganesha manifesting from Uma makes him parA-prakritI (brahman) swarUpa. Hence he is symbolic to brahman only. Now creation rests on Brahman, where Brahman is the substratum of the universe. This Vedantic symbolism is taught in this leela. Elephant is called as “gaja” now reverse these letters, what do you obtain? It becomes “jaga” which means “jagat, creation, universe”. Now Brahman alone is inert, hence Ganesha being brahma swarupa was shown as lifeless, Shiva put Gaja’s head on ganesha’s body and that Gajavadana deity became active and got life infused. This means, jagat is created on Brahman as the substratum. This is why Jagat (gaja mukha) is kept as the HEAD and that head is supported by the BODY (brahman), thereafter the body too has life, hence ganesha is totally Eshwara now (brahman who is active). Third secret is, creation happens through the combination of varNamAlA. Shakti is said to be all consonants and Shiva is said to be the vowels. Shruti as well as Puranas such as Suta Samhita say that vowels give life to consonants. This si why when Shakti created a being, Shiva infused life to him since Shiva is vowel-swarupa. So, this again shows everything gets created by Shiva-Shakti via aksharamAlA.

        Hope these would enter your brain now, and you would stop seeing things literally. Thanks!

        P.S:- Let’s stop this discussion now.

        Reply
      2. Kāmakalā Bhattācārya

        Shant Santosh Mahashay! Calm down! I can see that our teenager is now resorting to the final weapon of pseudo-Vaişņavas- anger.
        But it is to be understood that no matter how much an angry young teenager spits at the sky, sky remains unaffected. On whose face saliva falks back, I guess I don’t need to tell. As a popular Urdu saying goes, “samajhdar ko ishara qafi hai”. 😀

        Coming to the teenager, errr, Mr. Gaw”tam” (oops!), it appears that either you hadn’t read my answers to your earlier questions, or you are suffering from dyslexia. 😀
        Jokes apart, whatever the reason may, you are free to scroll the page up and review my answers for a quick reference. With this, I begin answering your questions:

        Q1. Who my mother is?
        Ans. Kula-Kuņđalinī, the resident of Kāmapīțha.

        Q2. Who my father is?
        Ans. Kulanātha, the founder of Kālikā Kula.

        Q3. Who is brainwashed by ISCKON?
        Ans. Many of the Śivadrohis out here, who under the influence of Tamo Guņa, propagate cock & bull myths about Hara-Gaurī without having done Śāstrādhyāyanam. Most are Niguras (Guruless) and Akulas (Non Kulācāris). Why does that bother you unless you are one of them? 😀

        Q4. Who is a Vaişņava?
        Ans. In Ānańdabhairavī’s own words, a person who has stationed himself/herself at Ajna Cakra is a Vaişņava (refer Rudrayāmala Tańtra). Rest are imposters in the name of Vaişņavas and have no right to call themselves Upāsakas of Śrī Hari.

        Q5. Śrī Rudra beheaded Vināyaka (Gaņeşa with human head, lord of obstacles) as a part of His well scripted Līlā. Why didn’t Umā intervene?
        Ans. Śrī Śrī Umā Devī did not intervene because She was perfectly aware of Vināyaka’s Prārabdha. Infact, it was Her own will that Gaņeşa gets beheaded. Caņđikā is Ādyāśakti, and Śūlapāņi couldn’t have even lifted His trident if Bhavānī didn’t will. Since He did and beheaded Gaņapati, know that He did so with Girisutā’s consent. For Śiva is Śava without the Imperial Will of Śakti.

        Your five questions have been duly answered. If still you find it too cryptic to understand, it would mean that either you don’t understand English, or you hadn’t read my reply yet again under the influence of Tamo Guņa. And son, I will understand both the cases; for as a popular Jagrata Bhajan from North India goes as follows-

        “Putra-Kuptra sune hai par na mata suni kumata”

        P.S- Pun intended once again 😀

        śrī śrī sińdhusutāyē nama: ll

        Reply
        1. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula (षण्मातुरः) (Post author)

          He posted a lengthy comment and at the end agreed to stop the discussion. I trashed his comment as it was again clear he didn’t read my message also.

          So, let’s both also stop commenting on this subject now since he too has agreed to stop.

          Reply
          1. Utkarsh

            MR Santosh ji ,I’m a teenager to being 17 years in age.
            AND U know the first time i HEARD ISKCONS supremacy i was 15 years and didnt knew what our vedas purans and upnishads were.BUT without any knowledge i could proudly say to an ISKCON PRIEST that u are wrong after hearing his interpolations.AS refrence i gave the KARPOORGAURAM mantra.u DONT NEED TO FOCUS ON ISKCONITES AND LOW INTELLECT VAISHNAVITES they wont get the fact in this lifetime(i can gurantee it)nowdays i meditate 4 hours in Lord Shiva and trust me by his Grace someting wonderful happened to me.EVEN AN UNEDUCATED person can tell ure words are true. THANK YOU

          2. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula (षण्मातुरः) (Post author)

            Thank you, your words (based on your experience of lord Shiva), whatever you have posted here, mean a lot to me!

            You are so young around half of my age. May lord shiva bless you.

            Just one suggestion my yooung friend! Your age is to focus on studies and your future. Please don’t spend time in polemical content or debates online. Please focus all your efforts in studies, as this is the time when you can build a strong foundation for your future.

  59. Kāmakalā Bhattācārya

    All’s well that ends well.
    Tamo Guņa is not if your Iśțha is Mahādeva or Bhavānī (as pseudo-Vaişņavas assume).
    Real Tamo Guņa is when you see everything, know the truth, but yet refuse to accept it.
    May Devī Sarasvatī be graceful upon Gawtam.

    śrī śrī cāmuņđāyē nama: ll

    Reply
  60. Arun Subramaniyan

    Kanchi Mahaswami explains why Gaesha, affectionately called Pillaiyar became Gajanana. Gajamukhasura a demon had obtained a boon that only a person born not out of normal union between a male and female and who is also elephant headed would be able to kill him. Ganesha is a manifestation of Devi’s powers. Shiva pretends as though he is angry at this new intruder into Kailash and beheads him and replaces nara mukha with gaja mukha.

    Also Shiva honored the words of Kashyapa Muni, who in a fit of anger ‘cursed’ Shiva that he will behead his son the same way he beheaded Surya Deva. Shiva is parama Gyana swaroopa ,the highest consciousness. There is no question of him being ignorant or confused. Every action of his has a deep meaning and nothing in this universe moves/exists without his grace/wish.

    Kind Regards
    Arun

    Reply
  61. Arwin

    Mr.Santosh, I have came across Pingala Singa Bhagavad Gita research book. He said that “original” Bhagavad Gita has only 84 verses and remaining 616 verses are interpolations. There was no visvarupa was shown and it has nothing to do with the grief of arjuna. According to him, he said only two different philosophies which is samkhya and yoga. From chapter 4 to 18 are interpolation and there are interpolations in the first 3 chapters also. He also say that krsna was not called as bhagavan. To find the correct gita he also corrected samkhya karika and yoga sutras. He removed the interpolation in there. According to him, samkhya karika is translated as science of 60 verses but the smakhya karika has 73 verses. He removed 13 verses from it and also corected some of the verses and he also corrected yoga sutra also. For me, he maybe correct because he also say that mahabratha is only 8800 verses not 100000 verses. Rest of the verses are later interpolations. I also agree. You can read the book in scribd app. If you download it you have 3 free tries. So, you can view the book in it.

    Reply
    1. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula (षण्मातुरः) (Post author)

      All such claims of abridgment of BG and MBH being only 8000 verses originally etc., are dubious claims. If you can understand Telugu, you may listen to the discourses of Sri Samavedam Shanmukha Sarma on BG and MBH, he has clarified all these doubts.

      Reply
  62. DeSi

    At the outset my sincere appreciation for your fabulous work. I read your articles and appreciate you for your knowledge and your gutsy commentaries.
    What is disgusting is the hateful comments of a few who call themselves Vaishnavas and Krishna Vishnu devotees. With such hatred im amazed why do we need muslim fundamentalists and christian missionaries? These rabid vaishnavas spend more time insulting other Gods than praise Bhagwan Krishnar.
    And Krishnar doesnt need such fundamentalist hate filled zealots.
    Krisha doesnt become bigger by insulting Shiva.
    And finally Shiva devotees never have any problems in prayimg to Maha Vishnu. But Vishnu devotees however educated and learmed they are have a hate filled inferiority complex towards Bhagwan Shiva.
    Its a disgrace.
    And those who disagree can agree to disagree. I understand this is a private blog and the author is doing a great job writing about Bhagean Shiva.
    Instead of trolling with so much hate and filth, get a life and spread Krishna consciousness elsewhere. All Shiva devotees already love and respect Bhagwan Vishnu. We dont need fundamentalist Islamic style iskcon trolls here

    Reply
    1. Thank you!

      SivArpaNaMastu _/|\_

      Reply
  63. Dr. B R Manjunath

    I did not know till I visited this website, people spend time on inane subjects like who is Vishnu and who is shiva and whether shiva is included or not included in Viswaroopa, or who is great, Vishnu or shiva. !!! This why today our religion is such doldrums . More people concerned with epics and Puranas and none concerned with Upanishats

    Reply
    1. What you do not know is that Upanishads are NOT for the masses. The epics and Puranas are for everyone. Secondly, please stop preaching. I know what I am doing and why I’m doing. You don’t know what is the ground reality of Hinduism and why such websites are needed. if remaining in the cocoon of Upanishads helps your personal Moksha and you want just that, let your selfish motive be fulfilled. I live for Mahadeva, Moksha is secondary for me, for me restoration of Maheshvara’s glory to its original state is important.

      Once again, stop preaching me. There is an ‘X’ mark on the browser window, which you could simply click to close the website from your vision. Help yourself with that.

      Reply
  64. SB Chelladurai (sivan)

    thanks santhosh ji.

    Reply
  65. Khandesha

    Hello Everyone,
    This discussion is going very well but one thing I realized that there are two different views and thoughts on the God.

    But as per my observations, realization, experience, study and scientifically observations is that Shiva is only supreme being and he is only one who is beyond everything and he is formless.

    Let me explain you that how Shiva is supreme being and he is bhraman and Omkar is that if you read the Mahabharat, chapter 13, Section 14 Sri krishan was saying to Udhistar and Bhisma that only Shiva is supreme being and he is formless, omani present, Shiva is only brahman, he is beyond everything, he is unborn, he is limitless, he is beyond the time, he is everything and I too became the most important God among the all gods and goddess because of mercy and favor of Lord Shivaji due to my strong devotion on Shiva only.

    Let me explain another historical evidence that UNISCO is the international independent entity as they have discovered the Lingas and Pashupati status in Haddapa sanskruti and even sindu sanskruti which is very very old civilization and second civilization on the earth and in sindu sankranti and civilization only god shiva or lord Pashupati they pray and they also follow the Shiva sanskruti as per UNISCO and many others organization are found all evidence on this and they wrote many books on this as well.

    One thing I observed that across all temple that the current status of all gods including Balaji temple as well that there is not a single status is placed in any temple which is universal default created i mean स्वयंभू मूर्ती नही हैं “all statue are human made recently in 7th Century and Shivaji is only Supreme Brhaman.

    Reply
    1. SB Chelladurai (sivan)

      Yes ji…shiva is only god…shiva is only supreme Brahman…

      Reply

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: