"After a deep research i found that only Vishnu is considered as brahm." Please elaborate on your research in your question. I dont disagree that Vishnu is brahman. But Vishnu only is brahman? That is not correct.

This debate never gets old about who is greater? Vishnu or Shiva? But we should know that they both are same. If any scripture says that Vishnu is real Parbrahma then it's mean both Shiva and Vishnu are Parbrahama because both are same, not different. Scripture don't need to mention both name (Shiva and Vishnu) separately since both are name of same Parbrahma. This post might help.

why don't you do research on Rig Veda II.1, which will make you understand that AGNI, RUDRA, VISHNU, INDRA, etc, are all epithets of the same BRAHMAN? @Harshit Gangwar

Yes, only Vishnu is Brahman and your research is correct.

@Ikshvaku If you remember, we had a discussion on what is special about the word Narayana, and you said you will get back to me. How are you able to declare that only Vishnu is brahman, without addressing the unresolved issues?

How is this even deep research? One who says "My religious way is the only heavenly skyway" leads to religious fanaticism and violence in this ignorance full Kaliyuga, even Abrahamics and non-vedic Mlecchas say that God is only Jesus or Allah with rest being Anti-christ and Kafirs, your view is parallel to them with God being Vishnu, rest being demigod worshipper. "They call him Indra, Mitra, Varuna, Agni, and he is heavenly-winged Garutman. To what is One, sages give many a title.— Rigveda 1.164.46"

Objective is knowing brahman and his greatness that no body can ever be equal to him in any aspect.. if 2 conjectures are not validated then that philosphy is not to be accepted. 1. nirdosha 2. gunapurna 3. gnana atma 4. sarva antar yami 5. all pervasive.. almost all gmaout of hindu philosphy will fail if you apply the 5 conditions.. Lets take both advaita and vistath advaita one of the main conjectures is God is material cause of this universe.. if he is material cause than all the dosha of creating this unequal or cannibalistic world should go to God..

2. Jiva is God, Jiva is equal in Gods one of the gunas like ananda or gnana.. Hindus accepts the fundamental god is gnana anand atma (sachchitananda swaroopa) then its akin to saying Jiva is God.. its advaita in disguise.. and instead of monotheistic philosphsophy than it becomes ploytheistic.. which is against the fundmental concept of hinduism which monotheism..

No there are other gods who claim to be the brahman.

@HarshitGangwar You never responded when asked about your research. Closing the question was the only option. Also your question falls under opinion based. Read this meta: hinduism.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1033/…

@Iwillcloseyourquestion I do remember. And to answer your other comment first: It cannot be Prajapati's sin of incest, because someone's sin doesn't get transferred to someone else. The chandala doesn't acquire the sin of his parent's immoral union, but he is said to be born of sin. Also, the passage says Rudra was born of "tapas", not incest.

@Ikshvaku The chandala is excluded from society because he is considered to be sinful. As for incest, Satapatha Brahmana mentions the incest between Prajapati and his daughter Dawn. Please read the story before commenting.

@Ikshvaku Please check this - sacred-texts.com/hin/manu/manu10.htm "29. Those (six mentioned above) also beget, the one on the females of the other, a great many (kinds of) despicable (sons), even more sinful than their (fathers), and excluded (from the Aryan community, vahya)." "38. But from a Kandala by a Pukkasa woman is born the sinful Sopaka, who lives by the occupations of his sire, and is ever despised by good men."

@Iwillcloseyourquestion There is no "transferring of sin" (without permission) in Hinduism. That violates the law of karma where only individuals are punished for their own deeds. When the Manusmriti says those castes are "sinful", it means they have an innate disposition to partake in evil, wicked acts; not that they acquired the sin of their parents unlawful union.

@Iwillcloseyourquestion I did read the story. Here is the sanskrit: "am prajāpatirabravīt | kumāra kiṃ rodiṣi yacramāttapaso 'dhi jāto 'sīti so 'bravīdanapahatapāpmā vā asmyahitanāmā nāma ma dhehīti tasmātputrasya jātasya nāma kuryātpāpmānamevāsya tadapahantyapi dvitīyamapi tṛtīyamabhipūrvamevāsya tatpāpmānamapahanti"

@Ikshvaku You misunderstood me. I am not suggesting transfer of sin. Nor is there any reason to believe that they are going to be innately more wicked, as you suggest. They are called sinful, because they are product of a "bad" union. In this world, we do see that people born to bad parent can be good. Prahlada is an example.

@Ikshvaku If you read the story, how are you denying that incest has taken place?

@Ikshvaku Please note - Krishna talks about pApayonih also being fit for liberation if they approach him (gIta 9.32). So, pApayonih need not be wicked, as you are suggesting.

@Iwillcloseyourquestion "Nor is there any reason to believe that they are going to be innately more wicked, as you suggest." - That's what these caste verses say, that low caste people and people born of improper unions have bad natures. For example: "From the Kṣatriya on a Śūdra maiden is born a being called ‘Ugra,’ of the stuff of the Kṣatriya and Śūdra, cruel in his deeds and dealings", and: "If a Sudra unites with a woman belonging to the foremost of the four orders, the son that is begotten is called a Chandala. Endued with a fierce disposition,..."

@Iwillcloseyourquestion I agree incest as has taken place, but the verse specifically says Shiva is not freed from sin. Now the question is, what sin is he not freed from?

@Ikshvaku You said - "That's what these caste verses say, that low caste people and people born of improper unions have bad natures." Please note that this is not a rule, because of Gita 9.32 and Prahlada example. (If they have bad natures as a rule, they are unfit for liberation). You should look at whole Sruti and Smriti, rather than taking a single statement.

@Iwillcloseyourquestion I agree it's not a rule, it's just a factor. Prahlad's evil nature was overridden by listening to stories of Vishnu while in the womb.

@Ikshvaku As I mentioned, in some versions of Valmiki Ramayana, Rama says that he was sinful or performed bad deeds in previos birth. This is all figurative and not literal. So also, Rudra is figuratively saying he is not free from sin, because of the sinful nature of the union. There are so many statements in Shruti and Smriti saying that Rudra is brahman. We have to take all these into consideration. Hence, Rudra is free from sin.

@Iwillcloseyourquestion Ok putting aside the scriptural argument, let's look at historic. Are you aware that Shankaracharya believed Vishnu is the saguna brahman? He says "adoration to Vasudeva" in his intro to his brahma sutra commentary.

@Ikshvaku I did some research on this a couple of years back. "Adoration to vAsudeva" is present in only the manuscript taken by Thibaut. Not present in other manuscripts. In any case, it is common for the copier of a manuscript to add benedictory shlokas at the start. There is actually a criticism against Shankara, by the dvaitins, that he did not start his BSB with benedictory verses. This would not have happened if the "adoration to vasudeva" were really invoked by Shankara.

@iwillclose Why don't you guys use chatroom for long discussion? This way many will be able to participate. Here it is hard to follow.

@TheLittleNaruto I did not expect this discussion to become so long. Yes, we can use chat if the other user is fine with it, but I think unless he or anyone else has any new question/point, I have nothing else to add.

@TheLittleNaruto Rudra is Parabrahman. No Vishnu no Shiva. Only Rudra. This should end the debate of Vishnu v shiva.