Do Shaivas accept this?

[Haridas]

Namaste.

I'm reletively new to Hinduism (born a Christian, converted to Hinduism from Islam), and the path I've chosen is Vaishnavism. However, I want to know the beliefs of Shaivas, also. I believe that Shaivism and Vaishnavism are two sides of the same coin.

It is stated in the Bhagavata Purana:

"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 for the purpose of maintenance and as Lord Trinetra (Shiva) in the end." (Bhagavata Purana 10.14.19)

Too many Vaishnavas are ignorant of this verse (one of many which claim that Lord Shiva is Lord Vishnu), and so they call Lord Shiva a demigod, which in reality is an insult to both Lord Shiva and Lord Vishnu.

Unfortunately, I seem to be one of the few Vaishnavas who believes this.

So my question to Shaivas is this: do you accept this verse from the Bhagavata Purana? Do you see Lord Shiva as an incarnation of Lord Vishnu, or vice-versa (Lord Vishnu as an incarnation of Lord Shiva)? Also, do you worship Lord Vishnu or do you see Him as the "greatest Shaiva" (like many Vaishnavas see Lord Shiva as the "greatest Vaishnava")?

[Arcanum]

Namaste Haridas
you are not allone in this understanding. I am fammiliar with vaisnava philosophy and practice for more then 15 years and I must agree whith you. Recently I become interesting in saivisam.

All vaishnavas should worship Lord Shiva with great respect, and Amaala Purana or Bhagavatam confirms this - vaisnavam yatha sambho. Of all vaishnavas Lord Shiva is the best. Therefore every vaisnava should worship Lord Shiva or at least have respect toward Him and His sevakas. It is nonsence to think oposite.


svapne jagarane sasvath krsna dhyana ratah sivah
yatha krsnas tatha sambhur na bhedo madhavesayoh

"Sleeping or awake, Siva is constantly absorbed in meditation on Krsna. As is Krsna, so is Sambhu; there is no difference between Madhava and Isa." (Brahma Vaivarta Purana, Prakriti Khanda 2.56.61)


Also Mahabharata (Anusasana-parva 135) says that Visnu and Shiva are nondifferent and even counts the names Shiva, Sarva, Sthanu, Isana, and Rudra -- names traditionally identified with Shiva -- among the thousand names of Visnu.


In Brhad-Bhagaavatamrta 1.2. 64-85 Srilla Sanatana Goswami wrote


84 Ah! All the residents of Sivaloka are liberated souls. By Siva's mercy how many of them are not only liberated, but are now pure devotees of Lord Krsna?


85 To consider Siva different from Lord Krsna is a great offense. The Supreme Personality of Godhead may forgive offenses committed to Him, but He does not forgive those committed against Siva


om namah shivaya

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam Haridas welcome


Namaste.

I'm reletively new to Hinduism (born a Christian, converted to Hinduism from Islam), and the path I've chosen is Vaishnavism. However, I want to know the beliefs of Shaivas, also. I believe that Shaivism and Vaishnavism are two sides of the same coin.

It is stated in the Bhagavata Purana:

"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 for the purpose of maintenance and as Lord Trinetra (Shiva) in the end." (Bhagavata Purana 10.14.19)

Too many Vaishnavas are ignorant of this verse (one of many which claim that Lord Shiva is Lord Vishnu), and so they call Lord Shiva a demigod, which in reality is an insult to both Lord Shiva and Lord Vishnu.

Unfortunately, I seem to be one of the few Vaishnavas who believes this.

So my question to Shaivas is this: do you accept this verse from the Bhagavata Purana? Do you see Lord Shiva as an incarnation of Lord Vishnu, or vice-versa (Lord Vishnu as an incarnation of Lord Shiva)? Also, do you worship Lord Vishnu or do you see Him as the "greatest Shaiva" (like many Vaishnavas see Lord Shiva as the "greatest Vaishnava")?

What you say is verynice, most Hindu see trimurti as aspect of the same supreme, narrow view of some sect distort the true nature of the Lord even when they see the evidence infront of them they try to ignore this.
what clear evidence one want When Krishna says i am Shankra of the rudras.

Jai Shree Krishna

[yajvan]

Hari Om
~~~~~~


Namaste Haridas , Ganesahprasad, Arcanum (et.al)


What you bring forward is of great interest (to me)... I have listened for the past 35 years on how one Lord is superior to another. That one is the cause of the other. For me , and the knowledge of Brahman and Vedanta offers, its a moot point ( for me)... How can there be two infinity's? How can my Istadevata not include all other forms and permutations of His/Her divine incarnations.

The wise know all this is Brahman and this is not a foreign concept to us here on HDF. This unity is most attractive to me, therefore going into any Mandir and bowing to Siva, Rama, Krsna, Visnu, Sri, Ganesha, brings joy as the comprehension of Brahman is there.

Krsna says this many times in the Gita. He is the Universal SELF; He is Skanda-ji, the Kumaras, Siva (Rudra), he is Visnu, the graha's... I am sure I am not telling you anything you do not know, and I am not lecturing. This is the glory of advaita, that ajnana melts away and we are viewing Bhuma, fulless, the plenum of Being.

So if one wishes to see this Fullness as Siva, or Krsna, or Shakti, etc. I am of the opinion let it be so. Yet when one takes a position that one expression of the Divine is fuller, or better or more superior, one has missed the opportunity for their Ishatadeva to be all encompassing. [ please note I am not inferring that any on this posting is doing this ]


just a thought - hoped to add just a slightly differerent view on this matter.

pranams,

[atanu]

Namaste Haridas , and Arcanum (et.al),

The Self is the highest God, since even God must have a Self. This is Sanatana Dharma.

Now, the Self is always Shiva and Eko -- the good one, the pure one. And the Self being ONE, there is really no need to pervade anything. Pervading can only happen when the Self has, as if, crumbled into many pieces -- and that happens in ignorance.

I am not a Shaiva, by the way.

Om

[Haridas]

Namaste all, and thanks for replying.



So if one wishes to see this Fullness as Siva, or Krsna, or Shakti, etc. I am of the opinion let it be so. Yet when one takes a position that one expression of the Divine is fuller, or better or more superior, one has missed the opportunity for their Ishatadeva to be all encompassing. [ please note I am not inferring that any on this posting is doing this ]

Your thought is true as it's supported clearly in Scripture. Here's one example:

You are Vayu, Yama, Agni, Varuna, Chandra, Prajapati, and Great-grandfather. I bow, yea, I bow to You a thousand times, Again and again I bow, I bow to You! (Bhagavad Gita 11.39)

It seems to me that only Sri Shankara's philosphy agrees with all the Scriptures, as all 4 sampradayas in Vaishnavism, for example, twist up this verse to fit their own views or even, as one "translator" did, change the meaning of the verse to mean something about Lord Vishnu being the elements (the "translator" was forced to leave out death because it would've contradicted his views).

Thanks again for posting.

[Ganeshprasad]

Namaste all, and thanks for replying.



Your thought is true as it's supported clearly in Scripture. Here's one example:

You are Vayu, Yama, Agni, Varuna, Chandra, Prajapati, and Great-grandfather. I bow, yea, I bow to You a thousand times, Again and again I bow, I bow to You! (Bhagavad Gita 11.39)

It seems to me that only Sri Shankara's philosphy agrees with all the Scriptures, as all 4 sampradayas in Vaishnavism, for example, twist up this verse to fit their own views or even, as one "translator" did, change the meaning of the verse to mean something about Lord Vishnu being the elements (the "translator" was forced to leave out death because it would've contradicted his views).

Thanks again for posting.

And that one is suppose to be 'As it is', how sad.
thank you for bringing this up.

Jai Shree Krishna

[Agnideva]

Namaste Haridas,

So my question to Shaivas is this: do you accept this verse from the Bhagavata Purana? Do you see Lord Shiva as an incarnation of Lord Vishnu, or vice-versa (Lord Vishnu as an incarnation of Lord Shiva)? Also, do you worship Lord Vishnu or do you see Him as the "greatest Shaiva" (like many Vaishnavas see Lord Shiva as the "greatest Vaishnava")?
This is an excellent thread, and some excellent questions. As far as Agamic Shaivas are concerned, God is called Shiva. Shiva is All and in All (this is per Shaivite non-dualism). It is Shiva who has created this world, sustains this world, and dissolves this world; Shiva has concealed Himself throughout creation, and when one is sufficiently matured, He will become revealed as All and in All. In these various capacities, Shiva is called Brahma, Vishnu, Rudra, Maheshvara and Sadashiva, respectively. These five forms of Shiva are collectively called Pancha-Brahma (Fivefold Brahman), and are alternatively known as Sadyojata, Vamadeva, Aghora, Tatpurusha and Ishana. So, all these forms are Shiva Himself appearing through His Shakti(s).

Now, when Shaivism aligns itself with the Puranic literature, one sees the same thing as what we see in the Vaishnava Puranas. There are plenty of instances in the Shaiva Puranas, where Shiva is seen as supreme, and Brahma and Vishnu are seen as subordinate. The classic case is the Jyotirlinga legend. Nevertheless, in Shaiva traditions, one does not see Vishnu as the “greatest Shaiva” or vice versa. The tendency in Shaivism is to see Vishnu and Shiva as one and the same. Put another way, just as Shaivism maintains the oneness of Shiva and Shakti, so also it maintains (although perhaps not as strongly) the oneness of Shiva and Narayana. This comes through in Shaiva iconography most beautifully: the oneness of Shiva-Shakti is depicted as Ardhanarishavara (half Shiva, half Shakti), and the oneness of Shiva-Vishnu is depicted as Hari-Hara (a.k.a. Shankara-Narayana; half Shiva, half Vishnu). In Saiva Siddhanta theology, both these forms figure into the 25 most important forms of Shiva.

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/3/3f/250px-Harihara.jpg
Hari-Hara Murti


Aum Namah Shivaya,
A.

[yajvan]

Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste Haridas,

This is an excellent thread, and some excellent questions. As far as Agamic Shaivas are concerned, God is called Shiva. Shiva is All and in All (this is per Shaivite non-dualism). It is Shiva who has created this world, sustains this world, and dissolves this world; Shiva has concealed Himself throughout creation, and when one is sufficiently matured, He will become revealed as All and in All. In these various capacities, Shiva is called Brahma, Vishnu, Rudra, Maheshvara and Sadashiva, respectively. These five forms of Shiva are collectively called Pancha-Brahma (Fivefold Brahman), Aum Namah Shivaya,
A.

Namaste Agnideva,
a great post... as this is a balanced and enlighted view. When I read your post I am drawn to the Bhagavad Gita - as I see no difference in Siva (Meheshvara some may say Sadha Shiva when they read the line below) and Krsna (Vasudeva) in their singularity. Chapt 4 verse 6 says it best for me: Though I am unborn (ajah) and of imperishable nature (avyaya), though Lord of all beings (Isvara), yet remaining in my own nature I take birth through My own power of creation.

Krsna-Siva explain His transcendental nature of the imperishable ,aksara, Yet talk of creation of the family of man ( and all of creation) from prakriti, yet He resides in His Absolute form even when He chooses to manifest as avatara.

The harmony of siva-krsna is there, yet many choose to separate these Divinities... as I have mentioned as of late - how can one divide Infinity? If this is done this is the maya people discuss. The thinking that one can meter out infinity into chunks of time, place and object.

There are many more slokas in the Gita that expound the greatness of the Imperishable (Siva) and the sameness of Krsna and Rudra, yet we tend to forget the beginning chapters of the Gita where Krsna lays the ground work. There are wonderful gems in the 1st 6 chapters.

Namah Sivaya
Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya

pranams,

[devisarada]

Hari Om
~~~~~


Namaste Agnideva,
a great post... as this is a balanced and enlighted view. When I read your post I am drawn to the Bhagavad Gita - as I see no difference in Siva (Meheshvara some may say Sadha Shiva when they read the line below) and Krsna (Vasudeva) in their singularity. Chapt 4 verse 6 says it best for me: Though I am unborn (ajah) and of imperishable nature (avyaya), though Lord of all beings (Isvara), yet remaining in my own nature I take birth through My own power of creation.

Krsna-Siva explain His transcendental nature of the imperishable ,aksara, Yet talk of creation of the family of man ( and all of creation) from prakriti, yet He resides in His Absolute form even when He chooses to manifest as avatara.

The harmony of siva-krsna is there, yet many choose to separate these Divinities... as I have mentioned as of late - how can one divide Infinity? If this is done this is the maya people discuss. The thinking that one can meter out infinity into chunks of time, place and object.

There are many more slokas in the Gita that expound the greatness of the Imperishable (Siva) and the sameness of Krsna and Rudra, yet we tend to forget the beginning chapters of the Gita where Krsna lays the ground work. There are wonderful gems in the 1st 6 chapters.

Namah Sivaya
Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya

pranams,

Namaste Yajvan, Agnideva, et al.

I too, see no difference between Krsna and Siva. I do not have the scholarly background that many of the contributors to HDF have. But, having read widely, meditated and churned so much information and so many opinions, over many years, I have come to the conclusion that it is "both and" and not "either or".

How is it even possible that Krsna and Siva are different?.

[Arjuna]

rudro viShNur umA lakShmIs tasmai tasyai namo namaH

[Agnideva]

Namaste Arjuna,


rudro viShNur umA lakShmIs tasmai tasyai namo namaH

Is this from the Rudra-Hrdaya Upanishad?

A.

[Eastern Mind]

As a practitioner of Saiva Siddhanta, and leaning towards a non - intellectual approach, I have not even read many scriptures on Vaishnivism. I think that that is one way to confuse the mind... (reading too many scriptures that may say different things, and then having to intellectually sort it out for yourself) so whether or not Saivas accept or don't accept is a moot point (for me) For example, I haven't studied the Gita much. I know it exists, is the Vaishnava book, but its just not my scripture. Another example is (I may be wrong) in the courts of Tamil Nadu, you can swear on the Tirukkural if you choose to. I know here in the west, when asked to swear on the Christian bible, and opting to not, here in Canada at least we have the option of the Gita, which is a good thing, IMHO. Aum Namashivaya

[Madhavan]

As a practitioner of Saiva Siddhanta, and leaning towards a non - intellectual approach, I have not even read many scriptures on Vaishnivism. I think that that is one way to confuse the mind... (reading too many scriptures that may say different things, and then having to intellectually sort it out for yourself) so whether or not Saivas accept or don't accept is a moot point (for me) For example, I haven't studied the Gita much. I know it exists, is the Vaishnava book, but its just not my scripture. Another example is (I may be wrong) in the courts of Tamil Nadu, you can swear on the Tirukkural if you choose to. I know here in the west, when asked to swear on the Christian bible, and opting to not, here in Canada at least we have the option of the Gita, which is a good thing, IMHO. Aum Namashivaya

Where is it said that Gita is a Vaishnava book?

[Eastern Mind]

Well, I assumed that the Gita is a Vaishnava book, seeing that it is about Krishna. Forgive me if I'm wrong. EM Perhaps you or others could clarify this.
Aum Namashivaya

[Agnideva]

Namaste EM,

Well, I assumed that the Gita is a Vaishnava book, seeing that it is about Krishna. Forgive me if I'm wrong. EM Perhaps you or others could clarify this. Aum Namashivaya
The BG is a very important book in all branches of Sanatana Dharma which are based and/or strongly aligned with the Vedanta philosophy. The Vedantic triad canon includes the principal Upanishads, the BG and the Brahma Sutras, the latter two attributed to Sage Vyasa. This triple canon is the basis of Advaita Vedanta, and it is of extreme importance also to Vaishnavas, whose philosophy is strongly aligned with the Vedantic triple canon, although the interpretations are different.

Now, when it comes to Shaivism and Shaktism, the philosophy and theology is not based on Vedantic triple canon, nor is it completely independent of it. Shaiva and Shakta philosophy and theology is based on the Agamas (Tantras), and this system is generally called Siddhanta. Siddhantic philosophies also accept that part of Vedanta (meaning the Upanishads) which are not contradictory to the teachings of the Agamic canon. Over the centuries, some Shaiva and Shakta masters have, however, tried to reconcile the bridge between Agamic and Vedantic philosophies by commenting on the Brahma Sutras and BG.

For the sake of completion, it must be mentioned here that Vaishnavism also has its own Agamas, but one rarely hears of Vaishnava siddhantic philosophy until one begins to delve deep into Vaishnava studies.

Aum Namah Shivaya.
A.

[Madhavan]

Well, I assumed that the Gita is a Vaishnava book, seeing that it is about Krishna. Forgive me if I'm wrong. EM Perhaps you or others could clarify this.
Aum Namashivaya

Because all this talk of Vaishnava or Shaiva texts are non vedic "nonsense". Because all names referred to in the scriptures belong to the supreme being. Only the supreme Lord is referred to by names such as Vishnu, Shiva, Krishna, Indra etc based on certain qualities. Vishnu means pervade or enter and hence directly means Atma which is the support of all existance. Shiva means goodness. Krishna means handsome etc.

There are dieties who are not the supreme Lord and get these names because they possess some of the above mentioned qualities. The diety Indra is so called because he possesses aishvarya. Brahma is so called because he is perfect.( most perfected of all jIvas)

Coming to Bhagavad Gita, the claim that it is a vaishnava text springs from certain passages where Krishna is extolled as the supreme being. This is certainly true. But who is this Krishna? Is he the same person who plays a flute or is he the Absolute being? If he is the Absolute being, then his words are to be interpreted as a spokesperson for Brahman and not for a specific God called Vishnu. Why, Krishna himself says that he is Shankara among the rudrAs, which means it is as open a text as possible!

Gita in my opinion does not favour any specific God, but rather Brahman, who is called Krishna in it. If it be argued whether it is vaishavite or a shaivite text, and I have pick one from it - then it is certainly vaishnavite. It is indeed unfortunate if Shaivaites avoid the Gita just because they think Gita is a vaishnavite text. Yes, Gita is certainly against vIra Shaivism.

[Eastern Mind]

Mahavan, and Agnidevan: Thank you for clarifying. As a Saivite, I don't dislike, or purposely avoid the BG. Its just that I have my own personally more important scriptures to study, and actually am not heavily into scritural study at all. But here's another question, especially for those who do study scripture a lot. How often do you feel.. "same idea, different words, slightly different interpretation'' when you read. I did read Vivekenanda's 4 yoga books, but that was a long time ago. I liked the principles of Vedanta, but somehow it wasn't practical enough for me. I wanted to know more about controlling anger, lifestyle, temle rituals, and the like. I guess maybe I'm biased by the Christians who can spout scripture all over the place but then don't practice what they preach. Here in the western media they are attacked, and I do read the news... Aun Namashivaya

[Agnideva]

Namaste EM,

I do agree with you. I say study the scriptures that help you in your practice, in your devotion. There is no need to study every last book and try to put everything together. In fact, too much intellectual study can also be a hindrance.

In my personal journey to Saivism, I have been through Vaishnavism and Vedanta, so I am familiar with the texts of both. Yes, the philosophy is different, the practice and emphasis is different, but the Divine we all seek is the same.

Aum Namah Shivaya,
A.

[atanu]

---- It is indeed unfortunate if Shaivaites avoid the Gita just because they think Gita is a vaishnavite text. Yes, Gita is certainly against vIra Shaivism.

Namaste,

I may be a bit biased or may be not. In my experience no scripture is untouchable for shaivas, or more particularly for Shiva devotees. Whether that is equally true of core vaishnavas, I am not sure?

Om

[sm78]

Mahavan, and Agnidevan: Thank you for clarifying. As a Saivite, I don't dislike, or purposely avoid the BG. Its just that I have my own personally more important scriptures to study, and actually am not heavily into scritural study at all. But here's another question, especially for those who do study scripture a lot. How often do you feel.. "same idea, different words, slightly different interpretation'' when you read. I did read Vivekenanda's 4 yoga books, but that was a long time ago. I liked the principles of Vedanta, but somehow it wasn't practical enough for me. I wanted to know more about controlling anger, lifestyle, temle rituals, and the like. I guess maybe I'm biased by the Christians who can spout scripture all over the place but then don't practice what they preach. Here in the western media they are attacked, and I do read the news... Aun Namashivaya

By your post I presume that you are a follower of Saiva Siddhanta church ?? In that case it must be the Guru Adesh as well for you not to spread oneself thin over too many scriptures ~ as Subramuniya Ji mentions this often in his work.

I am not a follower of the church or saivism in general, but I do think there is great wisdom in his opinions including this one. We are ordinary persons and becoming a pundit is not the primary goal, but liberation is. Also traditionally in all branches of the Sanatana Dharma, knowledge without a sampradaya and parampara means nothing ~ this was said by Adi Shankaracharya himself. The opinion of a person who does not belong to a Sampradaya and a Paramapara needs to be continuously ignored, how much may be his panditya on various scripture. I think realization and peace can dawn only when one follows one's guru parampara with highest faith and puts one's egoistic impulse to become a pundit to 2ndary importance.

[Nuno Matos]

Namaste Singhi Kaya

Adi Shankaracharya has said this as well; " Neither I am the fear of death nor I am the difference between races. Neither I am [any relation like] father, mother, nor I am born. Also, I am not a relative, a friend, a teacher (Guru), or a student (Shisya). I am the eternal happiness or bliss state, I am Shiv, I am Shiv.||5||.

[Eastern Mind]

sm78 : Yes, I am, although not an official member for some 12 years, a long story. But absolutely liberation is the key... to quote Yogaswami, Subramuniyaswami's guru when in a bookstore looking at a browser "Its not in books, you fool!" Not that scriptural study is a waste. I once dug myself through Pope's translation of Tiruvacagam. Quite the chore I might add. And I agree: truth is one, paths are many, sticking with a parampara is helpful. Aum Namashivaya

[atanu]

sm78 : ----- to quote Yogaswami, Subramuniyaswami's guru when in a bookstore looking at a browser "Its not in books, you fool!" Not that scriptural study is a waste. I once dug myself through Pope's translation of Tiruvacagam. Quite the chore I might add. And I agree: truth is one, paths are many, sticking with a parampara is helpful. Aum Namashivaya

Namaste,

Finally the ego will be cut down anyway, whether one likes it or not. So, it may be better to study scripture. But it is said that ego of a pundit is harder to cut down than the ego of a rustic. In this I think SM has a valid point, though you are also correct. There is no jiva who is devoid of ego.

Thiruvachakam has been put to music by Illyaraja. It is a good experience to close eyes and listen to it, though the language is foreign to me.

Regards to all.

Om Namah Shivaya