Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 48

Thread: Lord Krishna was shaiva?

  1. #1

    Question Lord Krishna was shaiva?

    Namaste! I`m newcomer here. I want to improve my knowledge about Satya Sanatana Dharma.
    In some article i read that Lord Krishna (and Lord Rama also) was Shiva bhakta (pashupata) during his life on the Earth, and its described in Mahabharata. Could somebody tell, in that chapters of Mahabharata i can find this information (if its true)?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    August 2007
    Location
    Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    57
    Rep Power
    36

    Re: Lord Krishna was shaiva?

    Namaste.
    I, too, am a Vaishnava devoted to Sri Rama. I can't give you specific verse numbers, but I can tell you that it is true that Sri Rama and Sri Krishna were Shiva bhaktas.

    Also know that Sri Rama's greatest bhakta, Sri Hanuman, was Lord Shiva incarnate.

    The reason why they worship each other and meditate on each other is because neither is greater over the other. In truth, Shiva is an incarnation of Vishnu.

    Sriman Narayana (the Supreme Divine, the Absolute Father-Mother) incarnates as Vishnu, and from Vishnu incarnates as Brahma and Shiva. Shiva is just an incarnation of the Supreme Lord Vishnu, and thus Shiva is equal to Vishnu and Rama and Krishna (since all incarnations of the Lord are equal).

    This is stated in the Vishnu Purana (though I don't have the exact citations) and also here:

    "To those unaware of Your position understanding it the material way do You, by Yourself expanding Your maya, appear for the matters of creation as Me (Brahma), as Yourself (Vishnu) for the purpose of maintenance and as Lord Trinetra (Shiva) in the end." (Bhagavata Purana 10.14.19)

    The wise understand that Shiva and Vishnu are One.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    Sahasrarkadyutirmatha
    Posts
    1,802
    Rep Power
    191

    Post Re: Lord Krishna was shaiva?

    Namaste Vishahara,

    The infant kRSNa first settled in gokula (a herd of kine, or a cow-shed), and indra gave him the title of gopendra (gopa indra, the chief herdsman) or govinda (the lord of cattle, the cow-obtainer).

    kRSNa lifted the levy of govardhana (cow-increase) as an earthly sign of his presence; his realm is known as goloka (cow-world); and his pastime is sporting with the gopI (the cow-herder’s wife, i.e. prakRti or nature) and her gopyaH (the milkmaids, the natures or qualities of prakRti).

    kRSNa innocently compels the dance of tattva and guNa by playing on his own nanda (both a flute of seven inches and enjoyment or happiness). And since nanda (i.e. shiva) is his foster-father, govinda was raised to become pashupati (lord of the herd) himself !

    The pańca pANDava are commanded by kRSNa and his pAńcajanya conch.

    pAńcajanya means “relating to the five races” and it was taken from the rAkshasa pańcajana (the pańcabhUta ~ “five elemental spirits” or “five classes of being”).

    ya is the anantavijaya shAŃkha of yudhiSThira.
    vA is the pauNDra shAŃkha of bhIma.
    shi is the devadatta shAŃkha of arjuna.
    maH is the maNipuSpaka shAŃkha of sahadeva.
    na is the sughoSa shAŃkha of nakula.

    And the sat sAŃga shAŃkha (the perfect convocation of all being) is namaH shivAya, the pAńcajanya shAŃkha of shrI kRSNa.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    India
    Posts
    4,193
    Rep Power
    369

    Re: Lord Krishna was shaiva?

    Quote Originally Posted by Haridas View Post
    Namaste.
    -----
    The reason why they worship each other and meditate on each other is because neither is greater over the other. In truth, Shiva is an incarnation of Vishnu.

    Sriman Narayana (the Supreme Divine, the Absolute Father-Mother) incarnates as Vishnu, and from Vishnu incarnates as Brahma and Shiva. Shiva is just an incarnation of the Supreme Lord Vishnu, and thus Shiva is equal to Vishnu and Rama and Krishna (since all incarnations of the Lord are equal).
    ----
    The wise understand that Shiva and Vishnu are One.
    Namaste Haridas,

    While agreeing to your "The wise understand that Shiva and Vishnu are One", since Vedas and Upanishads call both Rudra and Vishnu as Eko and Rudra as Vishnave, I cannot agree to "Sriman Narayana (the Supreme Divine, the Absolute Father-Mother) incarnates as Vishnu, and from Vishnu incarnates as Brahma and Shiva".

    Where it is said that Shiva is an incarnation, except in some sectarian purports?? It is an ignorant insult to Param Ishwara.

    What is visualised and known in terrestrial or heavenly domains are visualised by the one Seer, who visualised in the beginning the birth of Hirayanagarbha. The intentless indescribable is Rudra-Shiva, and in the plane of Pragnya, when endowed with intention of "Let Me become many", He is Narayana.

    RV Book 7 XLVI. Rudra.

    ---2 He through his lordship thinks on beings of the earth, on heavenly beings through his high imperial sway.


    Please refer to the following post for details.

    http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=2182

    Om
    That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth, beyond apprehension through ordinary means, the cessation of the phenomenal world, the auspicious and the non-dual. Thus Om is certainly the Self. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    January 2008
    Location
    Everywhere
    Age
    36
    Posts
    136
    Rep Power
    51

    Re: Lord Krishna was shaiva?

    What Atanu is said is exactly right.

    Shaivites call That one Supreme God as Siva or Purusha. Whereas Vaishnavites call that Supreme as Narayana. Now there is a difference in the name but not in nature. Even if Amrut is called by different names it does not become different.

    Shiva Purana states that Vishnu was incarnated from that One Purusha. In Bhagavatham Siva is incarnated from Narayana. Here we have to consider that Vishnu and Shiva in manifested forms are that one Supreme Lord.

    Krishna was Shaiva, Hanuman was Vaishnava.

    Don't we know that Shiva and Vishnu are one and the same God in different forms?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    October 2007
    Location
    UAE
    Posts
    142
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Lord Krishna was shaiva?

    Krishna is an avatar of Vishnu. That is proven by the fact that He showed His conch and discus to Bhishma. And Arjuna, after seeing the Vishvaroopam, saw the 4 handed form of Krishna, His original Narayana form. Krishna also hid the sun during the Arjuna-Jarasandhan encounter with His discus. So He is Vishnu, not Shiva.

    Yes, Krishna prayed to Shiva. Because Shiva had requested the Supreme Lord to come in a position at one point where He would pray to Rudra. Since Shiva is a Vaishnavite, the Lord chose to humor Him. This is also indicated in the scriptures.

    Thirumangai Azhwar, a famous saint, also had the same experience. The Lord came to the great azhwar and said, 'I want to become your toenail'. Thus, you can see that Lord Vishnu has no problems in lowering Himself for His devotees. Krishna's worship of Shiva can be interpreted in the same way; In fact, it is mentioned so by scripture.

    Narayana is supreme. He incarnates as Vishnu because He wants to protect. But He is not interested in destruction or creation, so He manifests as antaryami (Aniruddha & Sankarshana) in 2 living entities, Brahma and Shiva. These two are elevated souls, called Mahadevas.

    As usual, these shaivite advaitins are at it again. Atanu not only seeks to put Shiva on a pedestal over Vishnu, but also denigrates Vishnu to the status of a demi-god.

    Advaitins and others will say, we accept the vedas, but not this purana, or that. but Sri Vaishnavas can accept it all because their philosophy is complete. Vaishnavas can even accept the tamo, sattva, rajas classification of puranas, but siva advaitins keep harping about it being an interpolation. Ramanujacharya accepted the classification, so obviously we accept it. Siva is the controller of tamo guna, hence his puranas are tamasic.

    Siva Advaitam and Saivism are not vedic. Adi Sankara himself was a vaishnavite. He established that Govinda is the absolute Lord and was a devotee of Lakshmi Narasimha. Adi Sankara also quotes oftenly from the Vishnu Purana and establishes Vishnu's supremacy in his commentary on the Sahasranama. Most of his monasteries are founded near Vishnu Temples. That Kanchi Mutt is not an authentic one, and Sankaracharya himself never wrote Saundarya Lahiri or any of that other stuff about demi-gods. Hymns to Lord Ranganatha, Lakshmi Narasimha and Bhaja Govinda are authentic.

    Stuff like Shakta, Siva Advaitam or Jesus Advaitam are non-vedic. It is a bitter truth, but of course, Atanuji and the others fail to see it. Adi Sankara is respected as an avatar of Siva by Sri Vaishnavas, and a devotee par excellence. He was a Vaishnava Advaitin, that's all.

    'Kesava' indeed does mean Brahma, Vishnu and Siva. But the meaning is that, Siva and Brahma, being Ka and Isha, are born from the limbs of Vishnu. Hence, Kesava does not denote equality to gods, but acknowledges the supremacy of Vishnu.

    Advaita is not an incorrect path. It is not the complete truth either. A Personal God is at the helm. But Advaitins can and will attain moksha so long as they follow the standards of Adi Sankara. Unfortunately, Siva Advaitam is being propagated by most people nowadays.

    If Atanu would care to read the divine works of Ramanujacharya, known as Yatirajar (King of Sanyasis), you would see that the great saint follows this pattern:

    1) First, he will PROVE advaitam from vedas.
    2) Then, he will demolish the philosophy by saying, 'it could be interpreted like this or like this, but it really isn't so'.
    3) Then, he establishes Vishishtadvaitam and supremacy of Sriman Narayana.

    So much for Saiva Advaitam. Ramanujacharya can prove that as well if he wishes, then he will refute the same thing. I challenge Atanu and all these Saiva Advaitins to read the Sri Bhashyam, because I have no problem reading Advaita Acharyas' works. Then the truth can be seen.

    If the thread starter is unbiased, accept this - Krishna is Vishnu. There is no-one above Sriman Narayana, who is Vishnu. Worship of anya-devata is discouraged for those aspiring for salvation in the Gita. Siva, despite being a devotee of Vishnu need not be worshipped because unlike a Bhagavata, Shiva is only a Vaishnava. A bitter fact. And I have no pleasure in denigrating any gods or so, I am entirely neutral. If Siva was proven to be supreme I would worship him. But it isn't so.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    January 2008
    Age
    48
    Posts
    79
    Rep Power
    39

    Re: Lord Krishna was shaiva?

    Namaste Sri Vaishnava.

    Have you read all bhAshyas of Sri Shankara? How was it concluded that he was *only* a Vaishnavite?

    No doubt, ishTa devatA of Shankara was Krishna - no advaitin will deny it and it is also know that his kula devatA is Krishna. In his Gita bhAshya he has lavished praises on Krishna ( sometimes at the expense of other dieites such as Aditya, brahma and rudra). But you should still know that for advaitins, there is really no special fancy for names and forms - in their devotional moods they may praise their beloved dieites, that is all!

    I am stating a few facts from the works of Shankara to dispel your claims.

    Usage of vishNu in taittirIya bhAshya:

    In the very first passage in the shIxAvaLLii:

    shanno mitra.h sha.m varuNa.h | ... | shanno
    vishhNururukrama.h | namo brahmaNe | namsaste vaayo |
    tvameva pratyaxam brahmaasi |

    shankara explains as follows: The various gods are propitiated because they remove the various obstacles encountered while trying attain knowledge. vishNu is called urukrama.h, since he is swift footed. vAyu is called the perceptible brahman rather than the other deities (mitra.h, varuNa.h, vishhNu, etc) because as prANa he is closest to the
    self (Atman). Hence vAyu alone is called pratyaxam brahma. Note that shankara has no problems in elevating vAyu as compared to vishNu in this bhAshya.


    Usage of Ishvara and vishNu in kena bhAshya:

    When discussing the passage "na idam upAsate", shankara makes the following pUrvapaxa argument:

    "The supreme brahman cannot be the self. Instead it must be Ishvara, vishNu, prANa or indra, since it is logically not feasible for the Atman to be brahman. Here he lumps together the commonly worshiped deities and distinguishes them from the supreme brahman. This is because the point of view of the ignorant person, who thinks the limiting adjuncts are real, is adopted as the pUrvapaxa. Please note that shiva is identified with Ishvara. Later, when indra is puzzled by the disapperance of the yaxa, uma appears. shankara says vidyA appeared in the form of uma. shankara says that Indra decided to question uma about the yaxa, since she is always with the sarvajna Ishvara . Note again shiva is equated with Ishvara and here he is identified with the supreme brahman. Here the point of view is that of the jnAni, who knows that the limiting adjuncts associated with Ishvara are not real.

    So please read all the authentic works of Shankara before coming to definite conclusions.

    No doubt Shankara referred to vishNu as Parabrahman. He has however, referred to Shiva as Parabrahman too. Dont search selectively in his works please.

    ~RL

  8. #8
    Join Date
    January 2008
    Location
    Everywhere
    Age
    36
    Posts
    136
    Rep Power
    51

    Re: Lord Krishna was shaiva?

    In Siva Puran it is given that Lord Shiva appears when Vishnu and Brahma were quarreling as to who is greater. Siva appears as a Maha Linga which has no end and Start. He declares that 'Vishnu and Brahma are just agents who act in his Maya, whereas he is the Supreme Purusha' Do you think Siva Puran is Wrong?

    Sri Vaishnava has written something like 'humor'.

    Do you think someone can Humor with Siva?

    There is a legend that Virabhadra and Vishnu fight with each other when Sati devi commits suicide. And actually it is shown that Virabhadra over powers Vishnu!!

    Another legend says that Vishnu worshiping Siva with flowers finds that one flower is less and offers his eye as a flower, then Siva gives the Sudharshan Chakra.

    Didn't you read anything of Sankaracharya.

    Even Ramakrishna Paramahansa said 'Jiva free is Siva. Siva bound is Jiva'

    Know that Siva and Vishnu are equal at least now!!

    Sri Vaishnava seems to know everything! How great!! A realized man!!!

    How many times have you seen God Mr Sri Vaishnava? You seem to describe him so easily!

    Prove to me greatness of VISHNU over SIVA, Show me the greatness not through any Vaishnava Books.

    If I go according to Saivism Texts I will say Vishnu is just an aspect of Siva.

    If Saivism is not Vedic, then how come great men like Kannappa, Parashu Rama, Markandeya have fllowed it? It is you who is distinguishing as if you have seen everything! At least once did you see really god to be so sure? anyone can tell from books, know that.
    Last edited by bhargavsai; 21 January 2008 at 09:18 AM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    January 2008
    Location
    Everywhere
    Age
    36
    Posts
    136
    Rep Power
    51

    Re: Lord Krishna was shaiva?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rajalakshmi View Post
    Namaste Sri Vaishnava.

    Have you read all bhAshyas of Sri Shankara? How was it concluded that he was *only* a Vaishnavite?

    No doubt, ishTa devatA of Shankara was Krishna - no advaitin will deny it and it is also know that his kula devatA is Krishna. In his Gita bhAshya he has lavished praises on Krishna ( sometimes at the expense of other dieites such as Aditya, brahma and rudra). But you should still know that for advaitins, there is really no special fancy for names and forms - in their devotional moods they may praise their beloved dieites, that is all!

    I am stating a few facts from the works of Shankara to dispel your claims.

    Usage of vishNu in taittirIya bhAshya:

    In the very first passage in the shIxAvaLLii:

    shanno mitra.h sha.m varuNa.h | ... | shanno
    vishhNururukrama.h | namo brahmaNe | namsaste vaayo |
    tvameva pratyaxam brahmaasi |

    shankara explains as follows: The various gods are propitiated because they remove the various obstacles encountered while trying attain knowledge. vishNu is called urukrama.h, since he is swift footed. vAyu is called the perceptible brahman rather than the other deities (mitra.h, varuNa.h, vishhNu, etc) because as prANa he is closest to the
    self (Atman). Hence vAyu alone is called pratyaxam brahma. Note that shankara has no problems in elevating vAyu as compared to vishNu in this bhAshya.


    Usage of Ishvara and vishNu in kena bhAshya:

    When discussing the passage "na idam upAsate", shankara makes the following pUrvapaxa argument:

    "The supreme brahman cannot be the self. Instead it must be Ishvara, vishNu, prANa or indra, since it is logically not feasible for the Atman to be brahman. Here he lumps together the commonly worshiped deities and distinguishes them from the supreme brahman. This is because the point of view of the ignorant person, who thinks the limiting adjuncts are real, is adopted as the pUrvapaxa. Please note that shiva is identified with Ishvara. Later, when indra is puzzled by the disapperance of the yaxa, uma appears. shankara says vidyA appeared in the form of uma. shankara says that Indra decided to question uma about the yaxa, since she is always with the sarvajna Ishvara . Note again shiva is equated with Ishvara and here he is identified with the supreme brahman. Here the point of view is that of the jnAni, who knows that the limiting adjuncts associated with Ishvara are not real.

    So please read all the authentic works of Shankara before coming to definite conclusions.

    No doubt Shankara referred to vishNu as Parabrahman. He has however, referred to Shiva as Parabrahman too. Dont search selectively in his works please.

    ~RL
    Very well said. How can one be so Ignorant who does not know that Siva and Vishnu are both one and Same Ishvara?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    October 2007
    Location
    UAE
    Posts
    142
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Lord Krishna was shaiva?

    [quote=Rajalakshmi;20043]Namaste Sri Vaishnava.

    Have you read all bhAshyas of Sri Shankara? How was it concluded that he was *only* a Vaishnavite?
    And do you know that all his mutts are established in vaishnavite shrines? Advaita Vedanta establishes that Brahman is quality-less, but it doesn't say Shiva=Vishnu. In fact, Vishnu's Supremacy was established by Sankaracharya. The works such as Soundarya Lahiri are all later works attributed to Sankara.

    No doubt, ishTa devatA of Shankara was Krishna - no advaitin will deny it and it is also know that his kula devatA is Krishna. In his Gita bhAshya he has lavished praises on Krishna ( sometimes at the expense of other dieites such as Aditya, brahma and rudra). But you should still know that for advaitins, there is really no special fancy for names and forms - in their devotional moods they may praise their beloved dieites, that is all!
    Sankara said Brahman is nameless. And Krishna was not an 'ishta devta', that concept was never propounded by Sankara. Later people devised it and made it appear like one of Sankara's suggestions.

    In the Gita Bhasya, Sankara establishes the uselessness of anya devata. Why would he contradict himself by talking about ishta devta? That stuff is not an authentic preaching of Sankara.

    So please read all the authentic works of Shankara before coming to definite conclusions.


    You read this:

    According to the present day advaitins, SrI Adi Sankara Bhagavad
    pAdAL was a great synthesizer of all these six religions and
    that it is well incorporated within the advatia vEdAnta. Anyone
    of these specific six dEvatas can thus be considered as
    saguNa-brahman for them and intense devotion unto them will make
    these persons fit to receive the teachings of mahAvAkyas from a
    Guru. But, unbiassed scholars are of the opinion that SrI Adi
    Sankara recognized only Lord NArAyana as the SaguNa-Brahman, since
    in all of his commentaries on SAstras like Upanishads-Brahma
    SUtras-Bhagavad GIta-VishNu SahasranAma, he has equated only Lord
    NArAyana to SaguNa-Brahman and all other dEvatas as being
    sub-ordinate to Him. According to these scholars, some stotras
    etc on other dEvatas as being SaguNa-Brahman, attributed to SrI
    Adi Sankara is a later fabrication.

    Krishna is supreme. Shiva is a deva, but an elevated one (Mahadeva). Read Gita properly.

    Prove to me greatness of VISHNU over SIVA, Show me the greatness not through any Vaishnava Books.
    Moronic. The supremacy of Vishnu is established through the Vedas.

    1) Ramakrishna is not god-realised, he was just another of those so-called poser neo-advaitins.
    2) Shiva Purana is a Tamasic Purana, so no use quoting from it. It does not agree with sastras.
    3) Yes, 'Humor' means 'obliging', not as in 'funny'. Learn English. In any case, the sattvik puranas state that Shiva was defeated by the anger of Vishnu alone, rather than combat.

    Read my thread in the Hare Krishna forum. The Vedas and Upanishads establish the supremacy of Vishnu/Narayana, not Shiva or Vayu or Varuna.
    Last edited by Sri Vaishnava; 22 January 2008 at 07:08 AM.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •