33

I see that many people (including me) remain confused about who is the Supreme God. The main reason for confusion is that in different Puranas, different Gods are shown as Supreme God, e.g., in Shiva Purana, Shiva is said to be the starter of everything and same is said in Vishnu Purana regarding Lord Vishnu.

Similarly, in Mahabharata, Vyasa showed Lord Krishna as the Supreme God. If all these are written by the same Vyasa, i.e, Krishna Dwaipayan, then why is it so or is it that they were written by different Vyasas or other people?

Say No To Censorship
  • 30,811
  • 17
  • 131
  • 257
Aby
  • 10,103
  • 22
  • 71
  • 143
  • 7
    The Vaishnava Puranas contain an explanation of this: they say that there are three categories of Puranas, Sattvika, Rajasa, and Tamasa, and that Vyasa intentionally put false or misleading information into the Rajasa and Tamasa Puranas in order to mislead people with those bad gunas. I'm not sure whether Shaiva Puranas contain an analogous explanation saying that they're right and the other Puranas are intentionally misleading. – Keshav Srinivasan Jul 30 '15 at 14:44
  • 6
    Here is some information about this, http://www.dlshq.org/download/lordsiva.htm specially the section "Siva and Vishnu are One". ALl the best sir – Sai Jul 30 '15 at 15:32
  • @KeshavSrinivasan Can you please explain the things more clearly in an answer. Moreover, why it is to confuse people of those gunas. I mean, people should be given correct knowledge so that they can improve in life, rather than to continue what they are thinking and doing. Moreover, i myself don't find anything really tamsic in Shiva Purana. – Aby Aug 01 '15 at 12:47
  • @Sai Thanks for the link. Deep inside somewhere I also feel the same but seeing the stories of different Gods present at the same time or even sometimes in conflicting situations, etc makes people confuse. So, either this story or the other stories, one of them is ought to be not true. – Aby Aug 01 '15 at 12:53
  • Yes that is indeed human nature, that we want to compare and fight as to whose story is right and whose story is wrong. There are only three possible resolutions. 1. Vaishnava resolution: All stories marking Shiva as superior are either interpolations, lower truths or misinterpretations. 2. Shaiva resolution: All stories marking Vishnu as superior are interpolations, lower truths or misinterpretations by scholars. 3. Advaita resolution: All stories are true as well as false. They are true to the extent that they instill the spirit of renunciation and false so long as they encourage arguments. – Sai Aug 02 '15 at 03:46
  • 8
    Saying Vyasa intentionally put false or misleading information is accusing him of lying. Sages do not lie. Their tapas deteriorates if they stray from satyam and dharma. Such statements in puranas, if they exist, are very likely later additions by Vaishanava fanatics or more accurately, Shiva-haters. –  Sep 20 '15 at 15:13
  • @moonstar2001, going just by logic, if I say that A > B in one book, then I say B > A or B = A in a second book, obviously I am wrong in one of the books. The question of which book I am wrong in, is a never-ending debate, but I clearly made 2 contradicting statements, and only one of them can be true. – ram May 06 '16 at 02:01
  • 3
    @ram Logic helps us understand surely but it is often flawed or inadequate when it comes to understanding esoteric matters. Your argument presupposes that A and B are separate entities; when in reality there is only one paramatma and both A and B are mere manifestations of this singularity. –  May 06 '16 at 07:29
  • @moonstar2001 There is no such assumption. Whether they are different entities, or manifestations of the same entity, there is a contradiction. Assuming what you say is true, I can rephrase it as such - in book one, Vyasa says 'manifestation A' is greater than 'manifestation B', while in book two, he says 'manifestation B' is greater than 'manifestation A'. Both statements cannot be true simultaneously. – ram May 08 '16 at 03:58
  • 2
    @ram The contradiction is only limited to the time,space framework in which each manifestation is extolled. As long as these boundaries are acknowledged, yes A is superior (in abc). However B is also superior (in pqr). This frame of reference is the lacuna. Since the question is how can both A and B be superior (across time and space) , we need to go a step further and acknowledge that there is a singular truth beyond manifestations, and beyond time and space. However, since A, B as well as time and space are distortions of this singularity, it remains that BOTH A and B are superior. –  May 09 '16 at 09:23
  • @moonstar2001 - If, in every purana where the statement A>B or B>A occurred, he also added "at abc time/space", "at pqr time/space" etc., then your explanation is ok. But if he only added those in some puranas and left them out in others, what is the reason ? Does he imply "at ALL times/spaces", or imply "at SOME times/spaces", or he just forgot to add ? We are not discussing what is the ultimate truth, we are discussing whether Vyasa's works have a contradiction, so Vyasa must provide a resolution within the 18 puranas, without bringing external explanations. – ram May 09 '16 at 17:30
  • 1
    @ram The puranas are not an exercise in propositional logic.The time-space frame of reference can easily be inferred by the reader.2ndly, I dont subscribe to the notion that Vyasa contradicted himself.If there are seemingly contradictory notions,it is for the reader & interpreter to resolve them.If taking the aid of thought,linguistic,logical & knowledge frameworks that one is familiar with proves insufficient, then one must expand one's cognitive toolkit. This usually necessitates external knowledge. In the case of puranas, one may use the knowledge offered by other sastra like prasthana 3. –  May 09 '16 at 18:28
  • @moonstar2001 - I don't subscribe to the notion that we can use our own limited cognitive ability to interpret Vyasa's puranas. If we decide to resort to external pramaanam (prashnatrayi - upanishads, brahmasutras, gita), they have been expounded by various mahacharyas to mean contradictory things, namely, A > B, A = B etc., so we are back to square one. Either Vyasa's puranas have a contradiction, OR they are incomplete and require external explanations. Both these notions have a backing in the 3 major schools of thought (Adv,Dv,ViAdv), so this is not a discussion the two of us can resolve. – ram May 12 '16 at 01:22
  • @ram The puranas themselves expound on the vedas. So using knowledge that is an extension of the vedas (upanishads, prasthana 3 etc.) to understand another interpretation (the purana) of the veda is not extraordinary IMO. But this is where we differ and hence I rest. –  May 12 '16 at 05:01
  • @moonstar2001, I started this discussion as a reply to your comment that Keshav's statement accused Vyasa of lying in puranas. And I'm showing that statement is not unfounded, because even if we bring in extensions, including Vyasa's own Brahmasutras, it does not resolve the apparent contradictions in the puranas because the extensions themselves have contradictory explanations by mahacharyas. – ram May 15 '16 at 16:25
  • @moonstar2001 , and while the claim that the tamasic puranas are wrong may be unfounded, your claim that these are 'additions' and that they were made by 'Shiva-haters' may also be unfounded.
    You may also need to reflect on the big difference between Shiva -dveshis, and Shiva=Vishnu -dveshis. The latter only hate the notion of equivalence of the 2 deities, not the deity himself, because Vaishnavanaam aham Shambu: , so hating Shiva is hating Vishnu's biggest follower.     – ram May 15 '16 at 16:33
  • @ram It is one thing to express confusion or even discuss apparent contradictions and an entirely other matter to state that Vyasa believed X and the contradiction that is apparent to us is actually a lie and therefore not a contradiction at all. I believe many Vaishanvas have been misguided in this ( to their own detriment, if I may say so). I understand exactly what is being discussed. And many equivalence dveshis are also Shiva-dveshis and lose no opportunity to denigrate Shiva and everything associated with him. I have seen and heard these so-called scholars myself. –  May 19 '16 at 11:33
  • 1
    @ram My argument is that, while it is correct to believe "Vishnu is supreme" , it takes an advanced view to understand that Vishnu=Shiva. If gaining such an advanced view requires advanced study, so be it. So, without the advantage of this enlightened view, stating Shiva is inferior and accusing sages of Vyasa's stature of subterfuge is not only intellectually dishonest but a sin. –  May 19 '16 at 11:38
  • BTW, I sincerely believe Keshav was only sharing what he heard and is not a Siva-dveshi. –  May 19 '16 at 11:40
  • @moonstar2001 Yes, I'm certainly not a Shiva-hater; as a Sri Vaishnava I think Shiva is the greatest Vaishnava. – Keshav Srinivasan Aug 23 '16 at 18:11
  • 1
    Sage Vyasa would neither mislead people nor denigrate a deity. He is of motherly temperament. The reason for highlighting different forms as supreme at different times is because there are people with different inclinations and temperaments. All have a right and need to attain Brahman. This needs to be done in a fashion that is easier for them and appealing to them by segueing from their natural inclinations towards a particular form.Inculcating sraddha in their favorite form is the first step towards realising the formless. It follows the same tenet that Krishna declares in the Gita. –  Sep 13 '15 at 03:04
  • To paraphrase, He says He enhances our sraddha in whatever form we choose to express it. Please don't get inveigled by sectarian indoctrination. Have faith in our rishis and rishi culture. They are far superior in intellect, in penance and in altruism than we can imagine. They are people who dedicated eons of their lives and tapas to our well- being. Questioning their intentions or intellect is only detrimental to us. –  Sep 13 '15 at 03:04
  • 1
    Sage Vyasa, like a loving mother, exerted to prepare sweet dishes for those with a sweet tooth and savory ones for others, all with the goal of providing nutrition and sustenance to his children. Let us offer our worship to him and seek forgiveness for our impertinence, if any. –  Sep 13 '15 at 03:04
  • These stories must have been recited/sung/acted out to audiences who were worshipers of different deities. Its not clear how much Vyasa wrote (even assuming a single person like that existed) and how much he just collected from folklore. This kind of polytheism or henotheism (difent Gods being declared supreme at different places) goes all the way back to the Rig Veda. – S K Nov 26 '17 at 16:38
  • to understand scripture full of traps and pathholes.. those with tamo/rajas guna extol shiva, satvik guna extol vishnu why because as per BS by vyasa himself only Narayana is supreme deity which is accepted by three acharya without dount, now this advaita mess every jiva when realized becomes God than there is utter confusion of deity because there is no need to worship anybody but himself as stated by mandana mishra in his magnum opus istha siddhi, he says in his mangalacharana sloka where he prostates himself because being realized beign he himself is god.. Confusion starts with advaita. – Prasanna R Jun 04 '19 at 13:06
  • There are many possible answers to this question, and it is hard to be sure which one is correct. One can explain these differences using various considerations rooted in religion, tradition, history, literature etc. Some of the differences asked in the question could be due to interpolations, as opposed to Vyasa's writings. Personally my view is, the notion of deities evolved over time. The Puranic age developed the description of deities wider than what is found in The Vedas. What caused that was, arguably, the tendency of human mind to take sectarian view. Just a theory, and hard to prove. – Vidyarthi Jan 19 '20 at 17:52
  • Yeah I think arguments bout who is OG figure is semantics, that is just names. The real thing to understand is whether or not is free will (I don’t think there is) & time cycles, aka how existence is happening for us in all these universes – veganenvironmentalist Jan 12 '23 at 17:25

5 Answers5

16

Shiva Purana says that Brahma, Vishnu and Rudra (Trimurti) rivaled one another and they propitiated the Supreme Lord (their father) and they got a boon of creating others at outset of various Kalpas. So, in one Kalpa, Vishnu creates Rudra and Brahma and in another Kalpa Rudra creates Brahma and Vishnu and this cycle continues.

Similarly Matsya purana says different Puranas were originally recited by Brahma at outset of Various Kalpas. So, events happened in that Kalpa were narrated in those Puranas. So, in those Puranas, "the particular Trimurti" who created others is described as Supreme and this created confusion. "Trikalajnani Sages" when recounting Puranas just remember these Puranas and narrate it exactly. So, Vyasa had to mention different Gods as Supreme in different Puranas.

Chapter 13 The Creation of Brahma and Vishnu- Vayaviyasamhita Section one of Shiva Purana (Pg No -1818) says

Vayu Said,

  • I shall narrate how Rudra was born and how Brahma and Vishnu were born from each other.
  • The three are Atmans as causes of born of Mahesvara; they are cause of creation, sustenance and annihilation of the Universe consisting of mobile and immobile beings. Endowed with great qualities they are sanctified by great Lord. Presided over by his Shakti, they can perform their activities. Brahma can create, Vishnu can protect and Rudra can annihilate.
  • But they rivaled with one other. Desirous of excelling one other they propitiated their father the Supreme Lord by means of penance. Attaining all around favor of Lord at outset in Previous Kalpa, Rudra created Brahma and Vishnu. In another Kalpa, Brahma created Vishnu and Rudra. In another Kalpa, Vishnu created Brahma and Rudra. Thus in different Kalpas, Brahma, Vishnu and Rudra desiring mutual benefit are born of one another. Based on the events in their respective Kalpas, their process in being the cause of origin of one other is extolled by Sages.

See that chapter for more details.

Chapter 53 of Matysa Purana gives actual time of compilation of various Puranas.

  • Padma Purana - Padma Kalpa (hence the name)
  • Vishnu Purana - Varaha Kalpa (current Kalpa)
  • Vayu Purana (includes Shiva Purana) - Sveta Kalpa
  • Bhagavata Purana - Sarsvata Kalpa
  • Naradiya Purana - Brhat Kalpa
  • Agni Purana - Isana Kalpa
  • Bhavishya Purana - Aghora Kalpa
  • Brahma Vaivarata Purana - Rathantara Kalpa
  • Linga Purana - Agneya Kalpa
  • Varaha Purana - Manava Kalpa
  • Skanda Purana - Satpurusha Kalpa
  • Vamana Purana - Kurma Kalpa
  • Kurma Purana - Lakshmi Kalpa
  • Matsya Purana - Vaivastara Manvantara of Varaha Kalpa
Community
  • 1
The Destroyer
  • 31,363
  • 14
  • 169
  • 343
  • 4
    That's not what Aby is asking about. Aby is asking why different gods are portrayed as the supreme lord in different Puranas, not about why the sequence of creation differs. In the Shiva Purana chapter you're quoting Sadashiva is still portrayed as the supreme lord throughout, so this is an example of the phenomenon Aby is talking about, not an explanation for it. – Keshav Srinivasan Mar 19 '16 at 13:36
  • 4
    @KeshavSrinivasan It is mentioned "Supreme Lord" or Maha+ Eeswara. It's good explanation to reconcile different Puranas. Just replace SadaSiva with Para Vasudeva and Vishnu with Vyooha Vasudeva. – The Destroyer Mar 19 '16 at 13:42
  • 1
    Splendid answer! – Dr. Vineet Aggarwal Jan 30 '18 at 07:02
12

One has to read Vyasa's teachings on the gods to get an answer to this question.

Hari and Isana are equivalent

Well-adored by the Rishis, by Brahma, and by all the deities, that great God, the Lord of the universe, otherwise called by the name of Hari, then addressed the illustrious Isana and said these words:-He that knows thee, knows me. He that follows thee, follows me. There is no difference between thee and me. Do thou never think otherwise.

Mahabharata Santi Parva Section CCCXLIII

Then Partha, with a cheerful soul, and joined hands and eyes expanded (in wonder), gazed at the god having the bull for his mark [Siva] and who was the receptacle of every energy. And he beheld the offerings he made every night to Vasudeva lying by the side of the Three-eyed deity.

Mahabharata Drona Parva Section LXXXI

Vyasa has already shown the equivalence of Hari and Shiva in Mahabharata. So it is a matter of taste whether one regards Shiva as the Supreme or Vishnu as the Supreme. The different Puranas are catering to different tastes.

Pradip Gangopadhyay
  • 37,405
  • 3
  • 54
  • 124
  • 1
    Is there a Sanskrit version of the original Mahabharata text that you could link to? Meanings could get lost in translation. – ram May 06 '16 at 01:36
  • @ram Check this PDF from indianscriptures.com for the Sanskrit verses. – Say No To Censorship May 06 '16 at 02:32
  • I looked at the original sanskrit shloka, it says 'navayorantaram' - na + avayo + antaram . antaram could mean either distance or difference. The very fact that one person is talking to another person means there are 2 different persons, because we wouldn't talk to ourselves. The 'equivalence' is one of near/dearness like a Lord and his Bhakta, it doesn't mean there is only one entity with 2 forms/names. – ram May 06 '16 at 04:54
3

Let me explain with an analogy :
To a chaste (pativrata) wife, her husband is the supreme. She doesn't look up to any other man. Subjectively, there is no god greater than her husband. She doesn't go around comparing her husband with other husbands to find out who is the greatest husband Objectively. But if another woman comes nearby and claims that her husband is the greatest, she has every right to get angry and retort that her own husband is greater.
Every wife on the planet is a mixture of 3 gunas - sattva, rajas & tamas. Depending on her individual tastes, she may marry a man of sattva guna, rajo guna or tamo guna, and then obey him in her daily life.

Now in above analogy, replace wife with Man, husband with God, marry/obey with following Puranas, and Sattva with Vishnu, Rajas with Brahma, and Tamas with Shiva.

Vyasa realizes that it is the strength of bhakti or pativrata or attachment to husband that is more important than which husband they are married to, and that over several births, people will change gunas. Since there are people of different gunas, and to each guna, a particular God is favorite, each Purana extols a different God. Vyasa was not depicting an Objective supreme deity, but a Subjective supreme deity specifically for the readers of each Purana.

Now if we want to get into the argument of who is the Objective supreme deity, it would be like the wives fighting against each other. As long as we are all subject to the 3-gunas, we will have our different opinions.

ram
  • 8,076
  • 2
  • 30
  • 57
  • I enjoyed reading this answer and the analogy. As much as I wish this was the reason for the differences mentioned in the question, the issue is, analogies don't form the basis of certainty. While this could be the real reason and explanation for the conflict mentioned in the question, it is simply hard to be certain this was the case. The challenge is, there is no correctness proof for us to evaluate these theories & notions (including my own) which brings us back to square one. Obviously it is not easy to apply objectivity and conventional logic here. That means back to the realm of faith. – Vidyarthi Jan 19 '20 at 18:01
  • 1
    continuing from the previous message - but thanks for the post, and I enjoyed reading it. – Vidyarthi Jan 19 '20 at 18:05
  • 1
    same here I enjoyed this analogy! – Talk is Cheap Show me Code May 20 '21 at 06:46
1

Why vaishnavism,shaivism and shaiktism have their own head god?

Originally this started back from vedic period diffrent -diffrent hymns were created in the glory of its god. In rigveda there was vishnu sukta for lord vishnu In same rigveda there was devi sukta in praise of devi. Rudra suktam also was in rigveda. But the satarudriya of yajurveda is also a great hymn to god rudra.

But vedas also assested that these all gods are one and of no image.

This started and lord narayan in taitrayi aranyaka of yajurveda was considred as purush of vedas.

And in same taitrayi aranyaka place lord rudra was also attested to be the purush of vedas and all that exists.

And we can say that apart from drivercity the vedas and taittrayi aranyaka both have given equality of lord narayan and lord rudra. Same as vedas given equality of all gods.

Please read the article for further more information:— RUDRA AND VISHNU's EQUALITY PROVED IN VEDAS http://shivaandvishnu.blogspot.in/2017/10/rudra-and-vishnu-equality-proved-in.html?m=1

Sameas in post-vedic texts like ramayan and mahabharat the diffrenciation was at average level although some time they show both the gods as diffrent peesnality but then showed their equality.

Here's the proof:—

These two, viz., Brahma and Rudra, are the foremost of all the deities, having sprung respectively from the Propitiousness and the Wrath (of Aniruddha). Acting according to Aniruddha's direction, these two deities create and destroy. Although capable of granting boons unto all creatures, they are, however, in the matter of the concerns to which they attend (viz., Creation and Destruction), . instruments in the hands of Aniruddha.

— SHANTI PARVA,SECTION CCCXLII

Here is another proof:-

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, of the cloud Samvartaka (charged with water which myriads of oceans are not capacious enough to bear), and of the all consuming fire. Verily, when the period comes for the dissolution of the universe, that Rudra stands, ready to swallow up the universe. Thou art that Mahadeva, who is the original Creator of the universe with all its mobile and immobile entities.

— The Mahabharata, Book 13: Anusasana Parva: Anusasanika Parva: Section XIV

Harivamsa parva says about this :-

rudrasya paramo viShNurviShNoshcha paramaH shivaH |eka eva dvidhA bhUto loke charati nityashaH ||2-125-41

The supreme lord of rudra (shiva) is viShNu and the supreme lord of viShNu is shiva (rudra). The same lord is moving in the world always in two forms.

But by the starting of puranic age gods were started to be mapped as supreme on their purans or the other god as second best. although oldest purans like vayu purana and matsya puran does not do so. As vayu puran was present at time of mahabharat.

The Vayu Purana is mentioned in chapter 3.191 of the Mahabharata, and section 1.7 of the Harivamsa

And both vayu purana and matsya puran gives creation story as Bhraman divided himself into bhramha,vishnu and shiva.

   —THANKS FOR READING—

Community
  • 1
Fierce lord
  • 3,941
  • 13
  • 26
  • 1
  • Don't advertise your blog in every answer. It is used in most of the answers 2. Use block quotes when you are using a translation of others.
    • – Sarvabhouma Oct 27 '17 at 05:35