Svetasvatara Upanishad and temple visit

[Liang Ch'an]

Namaste,

Thank you again to everyone in their willingness to help me understand things in context.

I really enjoyed this text. It seems that in this text that Shaiva not seen primarily as a destroyer at all. Briefly he is described as a destroyer of evil or as both a creator and destroyer; lord of all things.

Is Shaiva depicted as more a destructive entity in other texts, perhaps some of the epics? Or did westerns just completely misrepresent him?

I have arranged to visit a local temple on Friday and plan to spend some time in meditation there, assuming that is okay. I don't know if mantra chanting is okay. What would you all recommend as far as how to allow for experiencing Shaiva's presence through a temple visit?

Thanks, Liang

[Eastern Mind]

Vannakkan: It is my personal opinion that Siva is misrepresented, yes. I much prefer 'dissolution' to destruction. The dwarf that Nataraja is stepping on represents the ego, and the circle of fire represents dissolution, or form returning to formlessness.

For Saivites like me, Siva is just the term we use for God. The encyclopedic trinity is largely a concoction.

Temples vary in what they 'allow' or not. Silence is always a safe bet. If you want to chant a certain mantra out loud, or with any volume, it would be best to ask the priest first. Silent meditation is definitely not a problem, unless you choose a high traffic spot. Friday morning shouldn't have much of a crowd, but the evening could have. Again, depends on the temple.

Aum Namasivaya

[Believer]

Namaste,


It is my personal opinion that Siva is misrepresented, yes. I much prefer 'dissolution' to destruction.
+1

Sometimes the Westerners choose the wrong words for describing certain Hindu concepts and sometimes Indians (Gurus) with a limited knowledge of the English language, do a great disservice to their own religion by choosing the wrong words. Case in point, a certain Guru wanted his followers to introduce the Hindu teachings to the westerners in one or more of a number of ways: Talk to them, offer them prasadam, invite them to the temple with no pre-conditions, give them free books etc. But his way of saying 'by any means' came out as 'by hook or by crook'. I am sure he did not know first of all that the phrase he used has a negative connotation and second, he was ignorant of the meaning of words 'hook' and 'crook' in this context. This is a phrase which many Indians use without really knowing what they are saying.

Keeping all this in mind, one has to dig deeper to get the real translation/essence of Sanskrit words, rather than the superficial meanings used in common English language translations. This makes it so much harder for people new to the religion but I don't see a way around this problem.

Pranam.

[Aanandinii]

Namaste ji,

Hi Liang Ch'an, sorry I haven't been around to add my welcome yet. Welcome! =)


Vannakkan: It is my personal opinion that Siva is misrepresented, yes. I much prefer 'dissolution' to destruction.
+1
Another +1

Keeping all this in mind, one has to dig deeper to get the real translation/essence of Sanskrit words, rather than the superficial meanings used in common English language translations.
Also +1.

Sanskrit is a deep language, with words that have a deep hierarchy of meanings. Some words have no actual translation or clear concept in English or other Western languages. Tamil as well. It is incredibly worthwhile to study either or both of them as much as you're able.

I do japa at the temple I go to, but silently, as EMji suggests.

~Pranam

[yajvan]

harih oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté

Just a few ideas for one’s kind consideration...

Who was śvetāśvatara ? The upaniṣad is named after him, this seer or ṛṣi (rishi). The term means he who has ( or is carried by/ drawn by)
white mules or horses. It suggests he ( this seer) is lead by pure senses. This is to suggest his purity, his stainless level of being.

Two śloka’s from the 4th chapter:
sūkṣmātisūkṣmaṃ kalilasya madhye viśvasya sraṣṭāram anekarūpaṃ |
viśvasyaikaṃ pariveṣṭitāraṃ jñātvā śivaṃ śāntim atyantam eti || 4.14

this says in general,
that person who knows/realizes this Being, the auspicious, gracious, benevolent one (śivaṃ)
who is most subtle ( subtler than the subtlest or sūkṣmātisūkṣmaṃ) who encircles ( some say creates)
this whole universe, who assumes many forms, that person ( who knows this Being) attains infinite peace.

I use the term ‘encircles’ because the term śiva is rooted in the term śī , ‘in whom all things lie’ - all things known, unknown or yet to be are within this Being.

ghṛtāt paraṃ maṇḍam ivātisūkṣmaṃ jñātvā śivaṃ sarvabhūteṣu gūḍhaṃ |
viśvasyaikaṃ pariveṣṭitāraṃ jñātvā devaṃ mucyate sarvapāśaiḥ || 4.16

this says,
by knowing Him, the auspicious, gracious, benevolent one (śivaṃ), who is hidden in all beings,
extremely subtle, like the essence of ghee ( that is hidden in milk) who envelopes the universe, ( that knowing person) is free from all fetters.
The term ‘all fetters’ = sarvapāśaiḥ which means sarva or ‘all’ + pāśaiḥ = a snare, bond , cord , chain , or fetter.

You ask
Is Shaiva depicted as more a destructive entity in other texts, perhaps some of the epics? Or did westerns just completely misrepresent him?
Briefly he is described as a destroyer of evil or as both a creator and destroyer; lord of all things.

The West ( in my opinion only) tends to simplify things to the mundane level of understanding. This keeps things at the superficial level.
That is good at times ( like in an elevator and you are asked to explain something before the 5th floor) , yet all the richness is
lost to the mundane and trite view. One passes up a diamond and thinks it to be just a stone.

Now pending one’s school of thought ( called dárśana or ‘view’ , sight, seeing, knowing) śiva takes on many-many different
notions, qualities, and the like. My views are honed and structured ( on this matter) by the trika śaivism, it consists of 4 schools of thought:


pratyabhijñā ( SELF recognition),
kula ( a grouping and used for 'totality' , Universal Consciousness),
krama ( progress made step-by-step),
spanda ( the throb, movement, SELF-referral of the Divine).


To suggest or infer I am competent in these 4 schools would be misleading. I consider myself the student (śiṣya).

So you ask is it the destructive and creative power? Yes, but that is limiting. He is everything that can and cannot happen. He is not only lord of all things, (all things meaning seen, unseen or yet to come, thought of, never thought of, and impossible to think of) is none other than Him to begin with.
Here is the view on this matter ( which takes some time to digest). I yield to the support offered by abhinanagupta-ji's work called bodhapañcadśikā or the 15 verses of wisdom. He informs us of the following:
tasaivaiṣā parā devī
svarūpāmarṣantosukā |
pūrṅatvaṁ sarvabhāveṣu
yasya nālpaṁ na cādhikam ||
I will rely on svāmī lakṣman-jū for the proper translation of this śloka. This then says,
The collective state of the universe is His supreme energy (or śakti) which He created to recognize His own nature.
This śakti who is the embodiment of the collective state of the universe, loves possessing the state of God Consciousness.
She is in the state of ignorance remaining perfectly complete (pūrṅatvaṁ) and full in each and every object.

So, here is the insight and observation: śiva is rooted in the term śī , ‘in whom all things lie' + the collective state of the universe is His supreme energy =
Nothing can be outside of Him. That suggests creation, destruction, maintenance, Grace, all possibilities, every possible outcome, every possible condition, action
or non-action that can occur or not occur for ever. What does that mean ? you are Him ( as am I, my dog, cat, tree, quarks, molecules, electro-magnetic spectrum,
the saint, sinner, good cop, bad cop, the weather, sun, moon, galaxies, and nothing at all or ākāśa (pure space).

Our duty/dharma is to re-member who we are, that is why we have our chance of being human. You ( we) need to go no further than your SELF (ātmán) to
make this discovery - it is not outside you.

iti śivaṁ

[Liang Ch'an]

Yajavan,

Thank you! I found the interpretion you shared very helpful. It is very compatable with my meager understanding of Reality I encounter in meditation. Especially "in whom all things lie." Where would you suggest I read further?

-Liang

[yajvan]

harih oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté


Yajavan,

Thank you! I found the interpretion you shared very helpful. It is very compatable with my meager understanding of Reality I encounter in meditation. Especially "in whom all things lie." Where would you suggest I read further?

-Liang
One is usually guided by one's interests and intent... for this I am not sure I can discern. Yet if for some reason the notion of 'in whom all things lie' strikes a cord with you
then I may have a few recommendations.

I always recommend the 6 systems of Indian philosophy for one just putting their foot in the water ( getting one's bearing).
It gives you a broad view of the core 6 systems of Indian thought. I count 16 schools, yet these 6 are core and will serve one well.
The notion is getting comforable with is the 3 main views:



there is a dualistic view ( some call dvaita)
a dual-non-dual or mono-dualistic ( some call bhedābheda - see the next paragraph for a description )
and a non-dual view some call monistic (or advaita) and abheda-śruti applies


The 6 schools are the following:


sāṁkhya
yoga
vedānta
mīmāṃsā
nyāya
vaiśeṣika

The 6 darśana-s (seeing, looking, knowledge, traditional doctrine or precept , collection of such doctrines) are so complete in themselves, that many people took the 6 to be different views. This is not the case, it is the 6, when taken as whole give a 360º view of Reality. A book for these six ( a two volume set) is 'The Systems of Indian Philosophy' , by Subodh Kapoor. Are there others? No doubt, yet this one is well written as I see it and can be a reference book for some years to come.

Now that said, my orientation of study & practice is around non-dual (advaita) kaśmir śaivism. I have listed the 4 schools in the last post. If this
orientation resonates with you then it is best to start at the beginning. The book , Kashmir Shaivism The Secret Supreme, by svāmī lakṣman-jū is a treasure.
From there one will begin to become grounded in the knowledge.

I also cannot emphasize enough the importance of the bhāgavad gītā. Many think it is (only) a vaiṣṇava śastra. It is the ocean of knowledge ( the veda-s) contained
in 18 chapters and 700 verses ( some say 701 and others translate it into 716). It is also the compressed version of the mahābhārata.

Now I am quite aware that there are many-many translations of the bhāgavad gītā. For me I have read several to get many views. If you have interest here I will comment on a few of them. But the point to be offered ( as I see it) is do not settle on just one translation. This also infers one is becoming a student (śiṣya) and not a window shopper or general reader (praghaṭāvid – general reader, not a profound one).

I leave you with the words of kṣemarāja-ji from his work spandanirṇaya - "यतस्त्वं शिवसमोऽसि or yatastvaṁ śivasamo'si - you (tvam) are (asi) identical (samaḥ) with śiva

iti śivaṁ

[Liang Ch'an]

Yajvan,

Thank you for the recommendations. I am going to read this next, mainly because it is available free on the net and I read most things on my iPhone anyways.
http://cincinnatitemple.com/articles/Kashmir-Shaivism-The-Secret-Supreme.pdf

I agree about the bhāgavad gītā. I am currently about halfway through it. It is an amazing profound work, though I wouldn't appreciated it as much as I do without having some background thanks to reading What is Hinduism? by Hinduism Today and from help from this forum, so thank you. I am sure that I appreciate only a small piece that a practicing hindu who studied multiple translations line by line would receive. For example, I have studied the heart sutra, a buddhist text that is rather short (only a page or two) for months.

Since we are talking about the bhagavad gita, don't know if I should start a new thread for this, but what is your interpretation or what interpretation do you like of the battle as allegory? At face value, the participating in a war, particularly a senseless one seems very much against ahimsa and as a buddhist in particular I am pacifist. Now I understand that Hindus aren't pacifists, nor in reality are buddhist nations. I have read that some interpret the battle as representing an inner struggle or war with desire and attachment. I think the teaching of following your dharma and acting ethically without regard to failure/success is a profound teaching with many uses. But again I have trouble with this story in a literal sense. Any help?

Thanks, Liang

[markandeya 108 dasa]

Namaste Liang Ji,

Its a great question, my answer will only be superficial. If you like reading I could recommend a book, Ethics in the Mahabharata a Philosophical Inquiry for Today by Sitansu S. Chakravarti. Its not a big book but well worth the time, its very insightful for many reasons.

Bhagavad Gita/MahaBharata and the war at Kurukshetra why would all this happen, and does it represent anything, is it symbolic to our struggle and so on, basically the more we know it ticks all the boxes, it was not a needless war, even though Maharaja Yudhistira and the Pandavas felt this way leading up to the war and after the war, but then the greatest teaching of Mahabharata comes into effect, and the whole glory of the epic is revealed.

[yajvan]

harih oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté


Yajvan,

Thank you for the recommendations. I am going to read this next, mainly because it is available free on the net and I read most things on my iPhone anyways.
http://cincinnatitemple.com/articles/Kashmir-Shaivism-The-Secret-Supreme.pdf

I agree about the bhāgavad gītā. I am currently about halfway through it. It is an amazing profound work, though I wouldn't appreciated it as much as I do without having some background thanks to reading What is Hinduism? by Hinduism Today and from help from this forum, so thank you. I am sure that I appreciate only a small piece that a practicing hindu who studied multiple translations line by line would receive. For example, I have studied the heart sutra, a buddhist text that is rather short (only a page or two) for months.

Since we are talking about the bhagavad gita, don't know if I should start a new thread for this, but what is your interpretation or what interpretation do you like of the battle as allegory? At face value, the participating in a war, particularly a senseless one seems very much against ahimsa and as a buddhist in particular I am pacifist. Now I understand that Hindus aren't pacifists, nor in reality are buddhist nations. I have read that some interpret the battle as representing an inner struggle or war with desire and attachment. I think the teaching of following your dharma and acting ethically without regard to failure/success is a profound teaching with many uses. But again I have trouble with this story in a literal sense. Any help?
Thanks, Liang
Let me mention a few things on the bhāgavad gītā & the mahābhārata. These books are so complete, whole that they talk on 3 levels... that of the mundane world, that of the mind and consciousness and that on the spiritual. What do they talk of ? They are addressing the major philosophies ( I called out 6 above) and their different views. At first one does not see it. That is why there is bhāgavad gītā. It is the ocean of knowledge contained in a drop. In just 700 ( some like to call out 701 which = 7 + 0 + 1 = 8) verses one can, with the proper instruction OR a level of comprehension, see this view. Note this - that each and every verse of the bhāgavad gītā can be applied to the 6 philosophies. It is that profound. Yet it takes an enlightened eye ( my teacher) to point this out.

Now if you have noticed the bhāgavad gītā & the mahābhārata both have 18 chapters. This is not by coincidence. Where else do we 18 ? The 18 purana-s. Where else ? In the number of days the war lasted, and the number of divisions of armies that fought . We have several posts on this matter on HDF - please take a look ( search) you will find it under 'The 5th veda' and also 'symbols of the mahābhārata'. Now why this 18 ? This is very interesting. Within the posts I just mentioned they address this ~18~ in a few ways. Yet I also need to append the posts offered and add additional knowledge I have been fortunate enough to study. This 18 is not just a ~ coincidence~ but is done for a reason. I will review this within the posts aforementioned as this knowledge ( really this way of thinking) has been lost for a while. Yet just a hint - the 18 has two meanings that have been applied - that of the ~symbol~ for the philosophies being discussed (debated, reviewed, exemplified) and also for the notion of cycles or yuga-s. Time periods when there is the brightest ( that of truth ) and its erosion over time.

Another hint - note that krsna took one side and gave his total army to the other side... why so ? Just this point gives better view ( this will be reviewed in future posts). The other side then has 11 divisions and the pandava-s had 7 ( 11+7 = 18). Now this 11 = 6 + 5. These all represent ( by number) a specific philosophical point of view. It has taken me years to find this, but by His Blessings, it comes, and is revealed.

So, I can tell you this - If one looks from event-to-event that occurs within the mahābhārata one becomes befuddled ( as I was and on many occasions) ; yet when one is told the overall endeavor that is being considered it brings new light to the whole story.

iti śivaṁ

[harih]

At face value, the participating in a war, particularly a senseless one seems very much against ahimsa and as a buddhist in particular I am pacifist. Now I understand that Hindus aren't pacifists, nor in reality are buddhist nations. I have read that some interpret the battle as representing an inner struggle or war with desire and attachment. I think the teaching of following your dharma and acting ethically without regard to failure/success is a profound teaching with many uses. But again I have trouble with this story in a literal sense. Any help?

Thanks, Liang

Dear Liang

Namaste. Even though your message was addressed to Sri Yajvan, I hope you don't mind me replying with my thoughts in brief. If the context of the story, the battle could not be termed senseless, as the Pandavas were fighting for their sustenance. Hence Lord Krishna says in the Gita "Without doing this Karma, you won't be able to undertake even your Sareera-Yatra (self maintenance)". And given the societal rules of the time, the Pandavas could not go abegging without disguising themselves as Brahmanas.

[Amalbhairom]

Eastern Mind: It is my personal opinion that Siva is misrepresented
I agree totally.
Shiva is Param Brahman (in Vedanta), Beyond Bindu Nada Kala (of Yoga), He is Jagadguru, the One from which all rays of light and knowledge descend into the samsara. In Patanjal Yoga Sutras, he is described as Ishwara, who is the original Guru of all Gurus, who is not bound by the shackles of Time and causation.
"Sa Purvesham api Guruh, KalenAnavachchedath."
Shiva is the source of Veda, Tantra, Yoga, Music, Weaponry and all things that sustain the worlds. Veda agrees with it. Upanishads like Svetashvetara (Belonging to the Krishna Yajurveda branch, that precedes Yajnavalkya) also does. There are also many other less known Upanishads that support the above.
Some Western Scholars(like R.T.H.Griffith) opine that Shiva was later included among the gods of the Vedas. But that is just wrong. What about Rigveda's sukta "Kad Rudram..."? Again, the famous Devi Suktam says "Aham Rudrebhih Vasubhih Charam... Rudraya Dhanuratanomi...." etc.
Some Puranas and Mahabharata, say Shiva was born from Brahmadeva's tears! But Svetasvetara Upanishad clearly refutes that claim, by stating that Shiva witnessed the birth of Brahma from his Lotus...

Again, certain sectarian pundits in ancient times (well, not so ancient either) added many verses denigrating Shiva to the status of a lesser god, in parts of Srimad Bhagavat Puran. These are called "Prakshipta" slokas (added later). Padma Purana (itself a Vaishnava Purana) goes so far as to classify other Puranas as Sattvic, Rajasik and Tamasik. Sadly, Padma Purana describes all major Shaiva Puranas as Tamasik!! But in doing so, Padma Purana (a) Proves that those Puranas on Shiva and Mahashakti were already celebrated works, before it's composition.
(b) Padma Purana describes many pilgrimages in Bhoomi-Khanda, curiously, Vijayanagara Temples among them. Vijayanagara came in the 14th century AD. Did Mahamuni Vyas begin writing Padma Purana in the 1400s? Or, did some other group of erudites write PadmA Purana and circulate it in Vyasa's name?
(c) PadmA Purana again contradicts itself and says Shiva is the greatest in certain parts!!
I am mentioning Padma-Purana this heavily, for those derogatory verses are frequently quoted by some puny minded people to insult Shiva, who is beyond praise or, abuse.

Vayu Purana is one of the oldest Puranas. It clearly glorifies Lord Shiva. It is mentioned in Mahabharata, so, it must be older than the epic itself. There were many Puranas, now extinct, that were already there before the birth of Vyasdeva. So, Scholars should get over the "only 18 are there" riddle.

Also, there are many shlokas in the Vedas and Upanishads spoken in eulogy to Shiva, the Supreme Lord, that have been misinterpreted with malefic intent. Many famous scholars of India have done this for centuries. They provide very poor illogical explanations and stupid grammatical laws to prove that those praises are really about Shri Vishnu!! (I am not against Vishnu, but Shiva is my Lord.) Yet those prashastis clearly mention words like, Shiva, Rudra, Ishana, Maheshwara.

Namaste to you all. And forgive me for going a little off topic.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté




Again, certain sectarian pundits in ancient times (well, not so ancient either) added many verses denigrating Shiva to the status of a lesser god, in parts of Srimad Bhagavat Puran. These are called "Prakshipta" slokas (added later). Padma Purana (itself a Vaishnava Purana) goes so far as to classify other Puranas as Sattvic, Rajasik and Tamasik. Sadly, Padma Purana describes all major Shaiva Puranas as Tamasik!!


The highest ( anuttara) quality and expression of sattvoguṇa is that of discriminative knowledge (viveka) by which one can experience the difference between buddhi (intellect) and puruṣa (Self, Being, Presence, Pure Awareness)
The highest ( anuttara) quality and expression of rajoguṇa is mumukṣā , that noble desire (tapas) for liberation (mukti).
The highest ( anuttara) quality and expression of tamoguṇa is the ability to halt all thoughts and sensory imput activities ( samādhi), and maintain this condition (turyātīta) perpetually.


I welcome tamoguṇa as an expression of śiva – this is His ‘grace’ or anugraha.


इतिशिवं
iti śivaṁ

[Amalbhairom]

to Yajvan,



The highest ( anuttara) quality and expression of sattvoguṇa is that of discriminative knowledge (viveka) by which one can experience the difference between buddhi (intellect) and puruṣa (Self, Being, Presence, Pure Awareness)
The highest ( anuttara) quality and expression of rajoguṇa is mumukṣā , that noble desire (tapas) for liberation (mukti).
The highest ( anuttara) quality and expression of tamoguṇa is the ability to halt all thoughts and sensory imput activities ( samādhi), and maintain this condition (turyātīta) perpetually.



Brother,

That's just absurd. Viveka is the attribute that generates dispassion... which in turn pushes one towards self realization. But Samadhi, on the other hand, makes one enlightened. Samadhi = union of Jivatman and Paramatman. To call the means of mukti as Sattva and mukti itself Tamasik doesn't make sense.

"Yogo ityuka samyoga jivatma paramatmano", that's samadhi. If that supreme 4th state is Tamasik, then according to your logic, Krishna, Vishnu, Vyas and most of the knowers of Brahman, must be very Tamasik!!! Most of the wise sages, remained in Turyaga/ Samadhi as frequently as possible. The scriptures call that state, to be "Beyond the 3 Gunas", Gunatita.

Remember Krishna's advice to Arjuna in Gita, "Veda is concerned with 3 gunas, Arjuna, try to go beyond all gunas." Traigunyo vishayo veda, nistraigunyo bhavarjunah.

Veda only leads us towards the truth, but the Truth can only be known by fusing the knower, knowledge and the object of knowledge... that is Samadhi.

What the 3 Gunas represent has been clarified in Shraddha Traya Vibhag yoga chapter of Gita. In Padma Purana, all Shaivite & Shakta Puranas have been labelled as Tamasik, only to bring down their credebility.

[Amalbhairom]

Reference:
Samyoga yoga ityukto jivatma paramatmano--- from Yogi Yajnavalkya.

Maitrayaniya Upanishad(6.20-30), of Yajurveda branch, 1000-800BC, which is much earlier than even Patanjali's Yoga Sutras, mark the level of Samadhi as Final. It describes six stages to the attainment of Samadhi. Pranayama, Pratyahara, Dharana, Dhyana, TARKA and Samadhi.
This Tarka stage is also a samadhi, albeit a lower one, wherein the intellect judges the object of meditation as in Viveka-Vichara. And the Final Samadhi state is the fusion of the tritaya, where all vichara & discrimination ends and only pure consciousness remains. In that highest state, there remains no doubt, no questions unanswered, for it is the merging in Param Brahman.

In Samadhi, there is only Brahman, the world of desire and illusion doesn't exist for the Yogi. So, there is no need for Viveka/ Discrimination of Purusha & Prakriti. The yogi is then absorbed in Parama Purusha. So, No Sattva, Rajas or, Tamas is there in Samadni.

[Amalbhairom]

Namaste, my brother, do not consider for a moment, that I hold any grievance against anyone. I am just clarifying my point, with supporting evidence.

Maitrayani Upanishad: (on the State of Self Realization)---Samadhi, where the mind is suspended, and a state beyond words ensue.
"Laya vikshepa rahitam, manah kritwa sunischalam; Yada yatiamanibhavam, tada tat Paramam Padam."
Again,
"Tavan mano Niroddhavyam Hridi yavat Kshyam gatam; Etaj Jnanam cha Mokhsham cha sesahanye grantha-vistarah."
"Samadhi Nirdhautam alasya Chetaso nivesitasya Atmani yat sukham bhavet;
Na shakyate varnayitum gira tada, swayam tad antahkaranena grahyate."

In Svetasvetara Upanishad:
In samadhi, during Self Realization, there is no illusory world left, neither is the Karana Sharira. The yogi's consciousness goes beyond the cosmic structure and merges into Param Brahman.
"Tasya-abhidhyanat Tritiyam Deha-Bhede, Viswaiswaryam Kevala Apta-Kamah."
======================

Now, Svetasvetara Upanishad clearly states that SHIVA (Paramatman) is the witness of the illusory universe as well as it's creator (Brahma-deva):
"Ya devanam prabhavasch udbhavascha, Vishwadhipo Rudro Maharshih; Hiranya-Garbham pashyata Jayamanam..."
(this Shruti successfully dispels all Puranic Hogwash, about Shiva being the son of Brahma-deva!!! Also, here it says, Shiva is the Origin of all gods.)

Knowing Shiva, as the Paramatman, one is liberated from all bondages of samsara. Here is the verse from Svetasvetara Up.--->
"Ghritat param mandam ivati sukhsmam, Jnatva Shivam Sarvabhuteshu Gurham.
Vishwas-aikam Parivestitaram, Jnatva Deva Muchyate Sarva-Pashai"
"