Shiva Dwesha

[bhargavsai]

I know that this thread may offense many people, and may anger many more.

What I have observed is that there is a lot of Shiva Dwesha. Some people consider Shiva lesser than human bhaktas. I am quiet regular at Yahoo Answers, and there I have seen many Wise people who have high knowledge and still there they are with their own little understanding of Divinity.

There I found people who claim that Shiva has 86% Vishnu's qualities, and he is nothing but a humble soul living on mercy of Vishnu. Whew! What a foolish thought!

Some people quiet literally take Krishna's statement "Surrender to me" in Bhagavad Gita. They feel that one should worship Krishna only, as Krishna said it. And worshiping other deities is not good. Why don't we understand that Krishna said that "One should surrender to God who is manifested in many forms, who is the self of all, and ruler of universe"

Shiva is compared to Yogurt and Vishnu to Milk. And some people are even claiming that Shiva cannot grant Moksha and Krishna alone can do it. Foolish!

Isn't it our religion that accepted all the faiths as valid? Then, why this shunning of others beliefs by some people? Why can't we understand that Ishwara(Brahman with qualities) is the one who is Vishnu or Brahman or Shiva? That which some call Narayana is called by others as ParamaShiva and by some others as Brahman. We claim that one Source exclusively belonging to our sects and religions! What a wrong thing to do!


Na Deva Pundareekaksho Na Cha Deva Trilochana
Na Devo Deharupihi Na Deva Chittarupadruk
Akrutrimam Anadyantam Devanam Deva Ucchyate.

The Lotus–eyed (Vishnu) is not the Deity. The tree-eyed (Shiva) is also not the Deity. For, the Deity is not incarnate in the body; nor is the Deity of the form of the mind. The splendour which is not artificial and which is without beginning and end is called the Deity.

2nd Shloka, (Sanskrit shloka is not given):

For those who have not known the essential nature of the deity, the worship of the form and the like has been prescribed. To one who is incapable of (travelling) a distance of one Yojana (eight miles) a distance of one kosa (two miles) have been prescribed.

-------------------------------------------Yoga Vashistam

[bhargavsai]

Shiva Keshava are one. Isn't this a fact?

[srivijaya]

I think it is a human tendency to put God into a box and claim that only our box is the right box.

But what kind of God allows himself to be limited by the imaginings of men?

Does a fish know anything about the water in which he swims? Does a letter know anything about the page upon which it is written? As a man utters a claim about the supreme - it is, by default, wide of the truth.

The supreme consciousness is much closer to us than our opinions and thoughts - it is there when they are gone. Closer to us that either our heart beat or our breath - it is there when they are gone.

What need we say about our ego and all the things we imagine ourselves to be?

Namaste

[Sri]

Vishnusya Hridayam Shivah,
Shivasya Hridayam Vishnuh.

A story (said to be true incident) -- a rich man wanted to make golden armour (kavacha) for Lord Pundalika at Pandharapur. The best available jeweler was a devotee of Shiva never wanted to see a deity of Vishnu, hence refused. After long persuasion he agreed to tie his eyes with a cloth and touch and feel to take the measurement of the deity. When he was taken infront of idol of Lord Pandharapur. He started touching the deity to feel shape. But the shape he could really feel was Lord Shiva’s Linga Swarupa. He opened his eyes but it was Lord Pundalik. He immediately closed his eyes started touching the idol but again he was having the same experience. Then he realized that there is no difference between any Gods..

Sri

[yajvan]

Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste,

Ekam sad, vipra bahudha vadanti - RSi dirghatamas, Rig Veda I.164.46
truth is one, sages call it variously.

[aumprakash]

Haro Hara

AFAIK there is know difference in Hari or Hara .

I visit ISCKON temple every week ( the closest temple ) , one day the visiting GURU was preaching that " do not pray to demi-Gods like Shiva, pray to Krishna The god", i just laughed and left, i still visit the temple.

AUm NamaH Shivayah

[bhargavsai]

This has been the case with ISKCON. People are encouraged that Shiva is just nothing before Krishna, and Shiva cannot give Moksha. What can we say? They are spiritually inferior to many people.

People cannot distinguish between God, he is the one ultimate call him Krishna or Shiva, he will be there.

[aumprakash]

he is the one ultimate call him Krishna or Shiva, he will be there.

well said bro..

[Atman]

Shiva is also a devotee of Krsna- he meditates on him and protects Vrindavana.

[bhargavsai]

Shiva is also a devotee of Krsna- he meditates on him and protects Vrindavana.

Yes Shiva is a devotee of Krishna, and Even Krishna is a devotee of Shiva. Try to see Shaivic texts they will glorify Shiva as Supreme. And Vaishnavic texts glorify Krishna as supreme.

So both are equal. That is the main point.

[Atman]

If they are both equal why is Vishnu's paradise higher- and in various texts Shiva is quoted as saying he and Lord Brahma with other saints always yearn to go there.
I think the analogy of the milk and yogurt was nicely used by Srila Phabupada to illustrate Shiva's position.

[Baobobtree]

Namaste Atman.

Which texts are you referring to?

Edit:
Shiva is also a devotee of Krsna- he meditates on him and protects Vrindavana. Yes, and Vishnu/Krishna is a devotee of Shiva. Skanda Upanishad verses eight and nine say-
8-9. (I bow) to Shiva of the form of Vishnu and Vishnu who is Shiva; Vishnu is Shiva’s heart and Shiva, Vishnu’s. Just as Vishnu is full of Shiva, so is Shiva full of Vishnu. As I see no difference, I am well all my life.

[atanu]

Yes Shiva is a devotee of Krishna, and Even Krishna is a devotee of Shiva. Try to see Shaivic texts they will glorify Shiva as Supreme. And Vaishnavic texts glorify Krishna as supreme.

So both are equal. That is the main point.

Namaste,

Shiva is advaita atma, one without a second. There is no Vedic statement that Rudra worships anyone except that He abides by the rule of time that is His creation. All worship Rudra (the Self) only, including Lord Krishna, who says so in Mahabharata. And in Atmic level Krishna and Shiva are not two different beings. There is only the Self.

Om

[bhargavsai]

If they are both equal why is Vishnu's paradise higher- and in various texts Shiva is quoted as saying he and Lord Brahma with other saints always yearn to go there.
I think the analogy of the milk and yogurt was nicely used by Srila Phabupada to illustrate Shiva's position.

Atman, I cannot believe someone who has chosen his name to be so meaningful("Atman": The great supreme, the soul or purusha") can be so narrow minded. You have not understood the essence of formlessness and still linger in the world of ego.

[Atman]

As a follower of Hara Krsna Philosophy, I do not consider 'formlessness,' or soul to be the highest goal. Those are for Buddhist/mayavadi sects. I do agree that atman is meaningful, but in various Vaishnava/Krsna texts, the goal is Narayana/Vishnu/Krsna.
Technically speaking, atman is pure sat-chit-ananda spiritual body in Vishnu-lok and higher. Atman is spiritual, but as all heavens up to Brahmalok are considered material, with Impersonal Brahman/Shivalok 'marginal,' atman/purusha is still caught up in matter/pradhna/antimatter, hence the (potential) reason for falldown even after trillions of years.

[atanu]

Technically speaking, atman is pure sat-chit-ananda spiritual body in Vishnu-lok and higher. Atman is spiritual, but as all heavens up to Brahmalok are considered material, with Impersonal Brahman/Shivalok 'marginal,' atman/purusha is still caught up in matter/pradhna/antimatter, hence the (potential) reason for falldown even after trillions of years.

Namaste,


Those are assumptions, unsupported by sruti scripture and opposed to the teaching of Krishna.

Atman is nalipayate. There is no question of it getting caught in matter/pradhna/antimatter.

13.33 Yathaa sarvagatam saukshmyaadaakaasham nopalipyate;
Sarvatraavasthito dehe tathaatmaa nopalipyate.

As the all-pervading ether is not tainted because of its subtlety, so the Self seated everywhere in the body, is not tainted.


It is purusha (Purva Usha) which appears to get caught due to its desire for Usha and not Atman, which ever remains taintless.


When you say atman is 'pure sat-chit-ananda spiritual body in Vishnu-lok and higher' you forget that a sense of loka itself is a modification of chit and not pure chit. Moreover, sat-chit-ananda cannot be a body (which necessarily must have a boundary) , since it is chit -- the intelligence itself. On the other hand, if you say sat-chit-ananda is body of some one else then that some one must be non-intelligent, since in that case it is another and different from chit.

Fall down is precisely due to desire to cling to or to acquire a personality and enjoy sensual inputs. Atman being advaita has no second and thus cannot have any distinguishable guna personality. It is indeed called nirguna. Although all objects appear and act in its presence, Atman has no association with any subtle or gross object. It is nalipayate.


Gita
13.15 Sarvendriyagunaabhaasam sarvendriyavivarjitam;
Asaktam sarvabhricchaiva nirgunam gunabhoktru cha.

Giving light to functions of all the senses, yet without the senses; unattached, yet supporting all; devoid of qualities, yet their experiencer.




Om

[Atman]

A body that expands into spiritual bliss- it is said again by Prabupada that the soul does have dimensions- which includes eyes, nose face etc.

Not to have a boundary, naturally true happiness can only be found in a spiritual planet, as soul happiness/impersonal brahman cannot compare- according to Prabupada's texts- and other literature.

Which shows that sensual and sexual lust are very powerful- again it shows that even in the highest material heaven one can still fall if not on guard.

[atanu]

A body that expands into spiritual bliss- it is said again by Prabupada that the soul does have dimensions- which includes eyes, nose face etc.


Obviously Prabhu is not talking of Atman, which Krishna describes as below.

Gita
13.15 Sarvendriyagunaabhaasam sarvendriyavivarjitam;
Asaktam sarvabhricchaiva nirgunam gunabhoktru cha.

Giving light to functions of all the senses, yet without the senses; unattached, yet supporting all; devoid of qualities, yet their experiencer.

--------------

It is really unfortunate that a Krishna bhakta does not even pay a small attention to Krishna's teachings.

Om

[Atman]

Aye, I think I pay more than enough attention than most people (take the hint). I think you must be referring to mayavadi philosophy/impersonalism. If atman was devoid of senses, why is there so much reference to spiritual sound, sight, smell, taste and touch within Krsna's planet.
There must be spiritual variety in spiritual Kingdom of God, therefore atman must also have spiritual senses, to cognise spiritual objects!

[atanu]

If atman was devoid of senses, why is there so much reference to spiritual sound, sight, smell, taste and touch within Krsna's planet.
Why is there so much light, smell, etc. in a dream, though there is no sun? The state is known as Taijjassa.



There must be spiritual variety in spiritual Kingdom of God, therefore atman must also have spiritual senses, to cognise spiritual objects!


Senses cognise objects through Chit and not the other way around. Who is questioning the power of atman?


Aye, I think I pay more than enough attention than most people (take the hint). I think you must be referring to mayavadi philosophy/impersonalism.


I am not referring to any vada. I am referring to the following:

Gita
13.15 Sarvendriyagunaabhaasam sarvendriyavivarjitam;
Asaktam sarvabhricchaiva nirgunam gunabhoktru cha.

Giving light to functions of all the senses, yet without the senses; unattached, yet supporting all; devoid of qualities, yet their experiencer.

Om

[Atman]

Interesting point- but where it is said without the senses, it is talking material senses- otherwise Phabupada wouldn't have mentioned spiritual senses and dimensions of the atman 1/10,000 part of a hair.

[atanu]

Interesting point- but where it is said without the senses, it is talking material senses- otherwise Phabupada wouldn't have mentioned spiritual senses and dimensions of the atman 1/10,000 part of a hair.

Dear atman,

I know that Shri Prabhupada was just awesome -- he measured out distances to different lokas, which are thousands of kilometers away with an atman that is just 1/10,000 part of a hair. He must be absolutely awesome to be so precise. But for your own well being it will do you no harm to pause and question Shri Prabhupada's statements and weigh them against shruti before parroting him.

I had asked you what is the sense organ that sees light in dreams? That is spiritual or material? Clarify your definitions and make sure that you understand the terms yourself.

Om