Avatar and Personification - Page 3

I would also make one more point clear

1) I had brought out the distinction only in philosophical terms, and not in terms of Names of Gods

2) well you might think all are same but there are categories in philosophical thoughts and they differ
fundamentally whether you like it or not

3) No body is fighting for supremacy we are only having discussion in terms of philosophy, whats wrong in that

and finally

4) people keep repeating same same same, what does same mean can they objectively compare all the traditions instead of some random quotations.

regards
Krishna

@Krishna, Please don't get offended by any of the statements you see here. Since you created this topic to put out your beliefs, we are doing the same for ours. And I understand your frustration over the repetition of such statements, but if you have bothered reading my post, I provided evidence to back me up. They aren't random quotations, they actually go along with the subject at hand very well. Someone asked if there was any proof to whether Shiva and Vishnu are one, and those quotes are the proof.
I am neither a Shivaite nor a Vaishnavaite, and these discussions are border-lying on disputes now.

okku right krishna...after all u have right to believe wat u wish..but i jst felt sad when ppl start comparing god..over which is better than whom..

@radha hi bavari thnx..for backup

Originally posted by: RadhaHiBawari

@Krishna, Please don't get offended by any of the statements you see here. Since you created this topic to put out your beliefs, we are doing the same for ours. And I understand your frustration over the repetition of such statements, but if you have bothered reading my post, I provided evidence to back me up. They aren't random quotations, they actually go along with the subject at hand very well. Someone asked if there was any proof to whether Shiva and Vishnu are one, and those quotes are the proof.
I am neither a Shivaite nor a Vaishnavaite, and these discussions are border-lying on disputes now.

I am not offended, moreover i did not post my belief as you will see in the first post i have put forward
two lines of thought, and only mentioned my preference at the end of post.

i had read your post actually, it is from Vishnu Puran, you can always believe both are one i have no issue there, but in the larger context ( not in your case) these two traditions differ, for you to understand i would recommend to study distinctions between teachings of adi shankaracharya and Sri ramanujacharya both stalwarts in their respective fields.

Regards
krishna

Eh. There's no harm in believing that "all are one". Better than fighting over whose god is right/etc.

Originally posted by: vanadhi

In our region we Respect Vishnu a lot because ,we consider him as a illusion of Ambika (Female supreme godess) in Male Form ,its Because he has taken the Left part Shivji in ShankraNarayan Form. So IN Tamil they call Shankar as Peruman(an sound denotes male formally) and vishnu as Perumal(al sounds to female formally in Tamil ).They literally treating him as a illusion or maya form of supreme Goddess. So our Shaivate blood never cares about vaishnavates blah blah blah .

Interestingly enough, the Mahabhagavata Purana has Krishna as a male incarnation of Kali and Radha and Krishna's 8 wives were forms of Shiva. Draupadi is also a partial incarnation of Kali. Vishnu does descend in this version but as Balarama and Arjuna. The gender reversal of the traditional story is fascinating IMO.

BTW Krishna is an actual king in this version, a topic of much concern in the DBSK forum from what I remember. 😆

Originally posted by: kkr531

Every body can believe whatever they want, but i appeal to all that do not generalize your belief and put it forward as universal truth.

i know " all are one" is the statement taught in the schools, but please don't put it forward again and again.

if you really believe its true come with sources and citations but don't post again and again the same statement.

regards
Krishna

Originally posted by: Gods_child

Though i wasnt aware of this explanation...BUT someHow i always thought that acc karma..shivji did penance After mata Sati's death and had to suffer bereavement ...to pardon wat shivji went through maa parvati took penance...Also it shows that it was result of SAti's karma that Maa has to do so much hardwork to win SHIva..this clears supports the fact that karma is the upmost..even god can't interfere with karma...

One has to rectify his or her karma by herself..and god is our strength in doing purification of our karma..

Thanx for sharing..the best reason for parvati maa's long penance

This is not an explanation, it is pure Purana's story. Tonight's epi. supports this fact that both Shivji & Parvati did penance to get each other as husnband & wife.

Vrish,it will be better if u talk abt today's episode.U were all excited 2 see devasur sangram and Taki capturing swarg.I thought u will make a huge post on it.

meenakshi..i meant puranic story only..i jst placed explaination.....

Originally posted by: mnx12

This is not an explanation, it is pure Purana's story. Tonight's epi. supports this fact that both Shivji & Parvati did penance to get each other as husnband & wife.

Sati & Parvati both were divine not humans, who have to pay for their Karmas 😆

When Daksh did penance to get Aadi shakti as her daughter, she had told him when his punyas will get over, he will disrespect her, at that time she will leave her. Sati when disrespected by Daksh for insulting her & Shivji, left the body given by him as per her boon given to Daksh. It was Daksh's karma, not Sati's karma. So this karma theory doesn't apply here.

I would add bit more

1) Shiva and Shakti are beyond Karma and also they are never separate.

2) They perform all this leelas for the betterment of mankind, as mnx12 had said earlier all the sastras and arts etc are result of conversation between Shiva and Parvati

3) They don these roles for betterment of Mankind.

regards
Krishna