PDA

View Full Version : Re: LORd SIVA : A Gaudiya Vaisnava Perspective



Pages : [1] 2

Eastern Mind
04 January 2010, 02:22 PM
Aum Namasivaya

* I did not start this thread. There was some glich in the program or the OP got rid of that post. Just so others know. Aum

Mohini Shakti Devi
04 January 2010, 10:40 PM
"A Gaudiya Vaisnava Perspective"
what actually our sidhhanta is
THREAD NAME: Hare Krishna (ISKCON) (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=30)

Following in this line . . . how can you say, 'if you hadn't have include that, what followed would have been totally different.' ?

"tactful words" are palatable, but it seems like charitable fault finding rather than a sincere 'contribution'.

Krsna Das
05 January 2010, 02:40 AM
Namaste Krsna Das:

Amazing how a few tactful words add to this.. "A Gaudiya Vaisnava Perspective" .. Now if you hadn't have include that, what followed would have been totally different. When you include that, it also says there are other perspectives. Thank you for this.

Aum Namasivaya

Please accept my humble obesiances !

All glories to SriSri Radha Krsna !

Correct. It is for this reason I had included the words "Gaudiya Vaisnava Perspective" otherwise we would have half of the world fighting for Krsna and other half for Siva.

My understanding is that a person who does not have faith in Lord Siva is even lowest that an asura, leave alone him being a Vaisnava.

Hari Bol !

lighthouse
05 January 2010, 09:32 AM
Shri Shivji,no Gaudiya Perspective this is but from Shri Shrimad Bhagvatam point of view.
Check this,
Lord Viṣṇu (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/v/visnu) replied: Brahmā (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/b/brahma), Lord Śiva (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/s/siva) and I are the supreme cause of the material manifestation. I am the Supersoul, the self sufficient witness. But impersonally there is no difference between Brahmā (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/b/brahma), Lord Śiva (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/s/siva) and Me.

http://srimadbhagavatam.com/4/7/50/en

And Brother never try to count qualities of God,we are far far sub standards to count it,even we cannot understand or answer what is Atma tatvam!!

keshava
07 January 2010, 03:26 AM
Shri Shivji,no Gaudiya Perspective this is but from Shri Shrimad Bhagvatam point of view.
Check this,
Lord Viṣṇu (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/v/visnu) replied: Brahmā (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/b/brahma), Lord Śiva (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/s/siva) and I are the supreme cause of the material manifestation. I am the Supersoul, the self sufficient witness. But impersonally there is no difference between Brahmā (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/b/brahma), Lord Śiva (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/s/siva) and Me.

http://srimadbhagavatam.com/4/7/50/en

And Brother never try to count qualities of God,we are far far sub standards to count it,even we cannot understand or answer what is Atma tatvam!!

Pranams
I believe the quote maybe slightly out of context - Lord Vishnu is talking about his all encompasing feature he also goes onto mention the living entities are also parts of him . Oneness and difference.

4.7.51-
The Lord continued: My dear Dakṣa (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/d/daksa) Dvija (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/d/dvija), I am the original Personality of Godhead, but in order to create, maintain and annihilate this cosmic manifestation, I act through My material energy, and according to the different grades of activity, My representations are differently named.

The Lord continued: One who is not in proper knowledge thinks that demigods like Brahmā (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/b/brahma) and Śiva (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/s/siva) are independent, or he even thinks that the living entities are independent.

A person with average intelligence does not think the head and other parts of the body to be separate. Similarly, My devotee does not differentiate Viṣṇu (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/v/visnu), the all-pervading Personality of Godhead, from any thing or any living entity.

The Lord continued: One who does not consider Brahmā (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/b/brahma), Viṣṇu (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/v/visnu), Śiva (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/s/siva) or the living entities in general to be separate from the Supreme, and who knows Brahman (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/b/brahman), actually realizes peace; others do not.

The sage Maitreya said: Thus Dakṣa (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/d/daksa), the head of all Prajāpatis, having been nicely instructed by the Supreme Personality of Godhead, worshiped Lord Viṣṇu (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/v/visnu). After worshiping Him by performing the prescribed sacrificial ceremonies, Dakṣa (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/d/daksa) separately worshiped Lord Brahmā (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/b/brahma) and Lord Śiva (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/s/siva).

lighthouse
07 January 2010, 03:38 AM
Yes that is why I wrote this line for you "And Brother never try to count qualities of God,we are far far sub standards to count it,even we cannot understand or answer what is Atma tatvam!! "

I believe the quote maybe slightly out of context

Krsna Das
07 January 2010, 06:34 AM
Dandavat Pranamas to everybody !

All glories to SriSri Radha Krsna !

I had already mentioned in my original post that this thread is not for debate, but just an FYI.

Regarding the Kala-tattva, I have never counted the qualities of Krsna or Siva or Brahma etc. This information comes down in a disciplic succession (Bonafide Guru Parampara Systems) from a guru to a disciple, and that is how it is.

Hari Bol !

lighthouse
07 January 2010, 06:39 AM
You do not agree on quotes of Vedas and you blindly belive what Guru says?Atleast put Veda equal to your Guru and then think again!No one can count qualities of God,no one.Guru can only see them but never able to count them.

This information comes down in a disciplic succession (Bonafide Guru Parampara Systems) from a guru to a disciple, and that is how it is.

lighthouse
07 January 2010, 06:43 AM
Ok show me a thread with a tile Shri Krishna Shivites Perspective,very few will be there actually but here as well as in other forums each and everytime new thread imerges for Shiva with "your" point of views.
Man its time to think again why each time at diffrent location discussion appears while comparing different form of Gods,think and think hard.

I had already mentioned in my original post that this thread is not for debate, but just an FYI.

Krsna Das
07 January 2010, 07:00 AM
Ok show me a thread with a tile Shri Krishna Shivites Perspective,very few will be there actually but here as well as in other forums each and everytime new thread imerges for Shiva with "your" point of views.
Man its time to think again why each time at diffrent location discussion appears while comparing different form of Gods,think and think hard.

Dandavat Pranamas to everybody again !

All glories to SriSri Radha Krsna !

1. Prabhu Ji, this thread does not mean that I am forcing my sidhhanta down your throat. It is just for your information what we beleive. If you dont like it, why are you accepting it? why?

2. Regarding following the Guru Maharaj blindly, I am actually following him blindly only, because I do not have any brains of my own (I am Jada-Mati. please pray for my liberation). I simply just cannot lean on my own understanding. So whatever our acaryas say, that is authority for me. :)

3. I am not comparing different forms of Gods. That is simply impossible, because God is one, and only one for me, and he is called by the name Krsna.

Thanks for your efforts to enlighten me !

Dandavat Pranamas again !

Eastern Mind
07 January 2010, 11:42 AM
"A Gaudiya Vaisnava Perspective"
what actually our sidhhanta is
THREAD NAME: Hare Krishna (ISKCON) (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=30)

Following in this line . . . how can you say, 'if you hadn't have include that, what followed would have been totally different.' ?

"tactful words" are palatable, but it seems like charitable fault finding rather than a sincere 'contribution'.

Namaste Mohini: Let me explain a bit how HDF is organized. There are Forums, and then there are threads (Chapters within forums, if you like) The title of this Forum is ISKCON, but the title of the thread is "Lord Siva: A Gaudiaya Vaisnava Perspective"

So I don't believe I was incorrect in offering a gratitude to the OP for his wording. I come here to learn, and so I read pretty much everything that is posted. I believe in something called Hindu solidarity, or the sentiment of getting along within the umbrella we term Hinduism. This is done through polite respect of other traditions besides our own. It is also done by learning about other traditions. I am totally with the OP in that I don't come here to argue or to demean or to insult other people's views. If the world is to be a tolerant loving place, the least we can do as Hindus is to get along. I am sorry if you find what I thought was a polite outreach of my hand and heart as offensive.

Namaste.

Aum namasivaya

Mohini Shakti Devi
09 January 2010, 03:53 PM
Namaste EM

Please forgive me for the appearence of offending you.

That was far from my point.

I meant to say that such a topic discussed with in the precint of a Specfic Catagory must not be constrained to advoiding the frank expression of its own orthodoxy.

You post alluded to the 'neccesity' of being 'Politically Correct' in a venue that was reserved for adherents to speak openly and explicitly about thier orthodoxy Point of view.

Please realize that I was pointing out that no apollogies nor concessions should bound a poster posting in the appropiately Titled Thread

Eastern Mind
09 January 2010, 04:58 PM
Mohini: No offense taken. Just thought I'd explain the difference between a thread and a Forum. I normally don't make any comments within the ISKCON forum at all. Yet I still read it, with an occasional response or comment because although there are Forums, we're still all in this together.

I see everyone as Brothers, Sisters, Aunts and Uncles within the fold now known as Hinduism.

Aum Namasivaya

ranjeetmore
30 January 2010, 03:24 PM
Dear Krsna dasji,

in Bhagavatam,Sri Shankara is described(by Brahma) as being the Supreme Brahm beyond maya-the combinational Mother and Father of the Material universe.

Just forget all that.Come back to our siddhanta-the gaudiya siddhanta.The gosvamis's view of shiva is shocking to those who haven't read anything outside Srila Prabhupada's works.
The great Advaita Acharya was Sadashiva.His wife,seeta,was Parvati devi.
Advaita acharya is indifferent from Gauranga just as Sadashiva is indifferent from Sri Krsna.

The Brahma,Visnu,Mahesa of the material world are guna avataras and are depicted(in puranas) as being subject to control either by Devi,Sadashiva,Krsna and Ramachandra.
There is nothing baffling in this.

However,the Sadashiva Who lives in the Spiritual world is completely equal to Visnu as pointed out by earlier acharyas.

ScottMalaysia
09 March 2010, 03:26 PM
Krsna can never be attained without the Mercy of Lord Siva: Lord Siva is called the highest among all the vaisnavas in Srimad Bhagwatam (http://vedabase.net/sb/12/13/16/en (https://gsmail.fiserv.co.in/owa/redir.aspx?C=3ad9afb40f1947e28cd271dad62ff337&URL=http%3a%2f%2fvedabase.net%2fsb%2f12%2f13%2f16%2fen)). Since Krsna cannot be attained without the mercy of vaisnavas, it is impossible to attain Krsna without mercy of Lord Siva. It is for this reason that some of our Gaudiya Mathas also have Lord Siva sitauted in the form of Siva-Linga, just like other temples.

If this is true according to your sect, why do you not then worship Lord Shiva in your temples? Why do you not have a Deity of Lord Shiva?

Regarding the 64 qualities of Krishna, what is the source of this? Does it come from any of the Puranas?

Krsna Das
10 March 2010, 01:09 AM
I originally requested not to post questions here in this thread, but any ways, I am giving the answer:

We do have Siva-lingams in some of our Gaudiya Vaishnava Temples. What to say, Sivalingam also resides at the very birth place of Mahaprabhu, the Yoga Pith in Nabadwipa.

I will post a photo of diety of Lord Siva in one of our temples in Vrindavan. We also fast on Siva-Ratri. I have a photo of Lord Shiva in my altar. Though that has to be placed according to some regulations.

This Sava-Ratri (the one which already passed this year), I saw ISKCON temple organising a ratha-yatra festival for Lord Siva, where the raplicas of 12 jyotirlingas were seated on a large ratha and the krsna devotees were pulling the ratha.

So you see, we also perform devotion to Lord Siva, but in a different way.

grames
10 March 2010, 08:35 AM
Dear Krshna Das,

Thanks for very nice post and i am not able to stop myself from asking these questions and i hope you will not mind answering for the benefit of ignorant like me.

In your message, you have mentioned that worshiping different forms of Shiva attain different destinations (either Shiva Loka or not sure the name but the Abode of Sambu).

What are the differences in terms of their Sadaka between Sada-Shiva and Rudra-Shiva worshipers?

Who represent Linga? (I am still not sure it is 'only' Rudra as i always believed Shiva Linga represent Sada Shiva and all His then expansions. I may be wrong but i am still curious to know Gaudiya perspective on this. I am limiting myself to my Vaishnava faith)

So when you say Lord Shiva, you are in fact pointing to SadaShiva only right? Or does that also interchangeably mean Rudra? or some another form of Lord? Because you said, they are two "aspects" of Shiva or Shiva Tattva. Do Gaudiyas also believe in the "Ishwara" aspect of Shiva or Isa?

I beg your pardon and forgiveness one more time as i raised questions to get more clarity.

Krsna Das
10 March 2010, 10:16 AM
Dear Krshna Das,
Thanks for very nice post and i am not able to stop myself from asking these questions and i hope you will not mind answering for the benefit of ignorant like me.


Beleive me, even I am ignorant regarding these two tattvas - Siva-tattva and the process of creation of universe. I am still learning, and there are many questions which I myself am having regarding this tattva but unable to find satisfactory answers till now.


In your message, you have mentioned that worshiping different forms of Shiva attain different destinations (either Shiva Loka or not sure the name but the Abode of Sambu).

Yes different destinations. The abode of Sada-Siva is the expansion of Sandhini-Sakti, which is an aspect or Para-sakti and not Maya-Sakti. Therefore, this abode is eternal and located at the other border of para-vyoma or adhyatmik-akash. You can understand this clearly when you see the map of cosmos in ISKCON or our Matha.

The abode of Rudra-Siva or Sambhu is the manifestation of Maya-Sakti, which is the perverted reflection of yogamaya-potency (that is why it is also known as Chhaya-sakti). Although Sambhu may or may not be a Jiva-tattva (ignoring the exceptional cases), but his abode is not eternal, and neither is his position, just like Brahma. The Jivas who attain this abode have to come back to this mortal-realm once there span is over, just like in case of brahma-loka. My understanding is that even considering the cases when Sambhu is not Jiva-tattva, even then the sdahakas of his, do not attain the permanent position.


What are the differences in terms of their Sadaka between Sada-Shiva and Rudra-Shiva worshipers?

Sadhakas of Sada-Siva worship him considering him to be a Vaishanava dear to Lord. Although he is Visnu-tattva, but still his "role" is that of a Vaisnava, who always keeps on discussing hari-katha with his divine consort, Parvati-Devi, who is none other than an expansion of yoga-maya potency. The sadhakas of Sada-Siva are vaishnavas, not shaivas.

Sadhakas of Rudra Siva are pashupatas, naga sadhus... etc or simply called shaivas, who worship him as the primeval Lord. Since Rudra is the Saktyavesa-expansion, they do get the result of performing worship of him, but never able to cross the 3 gunas of maya-sakti because remember, Rudra himself accepts the adulterating principle containing the stupefying quality of the deluding potency (see my post).



Who represent Linga? (I am still not sure it is 'only' Rudra as i always believed Shiva Linga represent Sada Shiva and all His then expansions. I may be wrong but i am still curious to know Gaudiya perspective on this. I am limiting myself to my Vaishnava faith)


Actually Linga represents both - Rudra as well as Sada-siva. The difference results in the bhava of the sadhak, meaning the Sadhak is worshipping Siva as Sri Bhagwan himself, or worshipping him with correct understanding of his tattva. This difference in bhava results in the difference in outcome, though both of them may worship same emblem. We have Siva-lingam in our temples as well, and other temples also have it. But there is difference in understanding of tattva. This understanding brings the difference in outcome.


So when you say Lord Shiva, you are in fact pointing to SadaShiva only right? Or does that also interchangeably mean Rudra? or some another form of Lord? Because you said, they are two "aspects" of Shiva or Shiva Tattva. Do Gaudiyas also believe in the "Ishwara" aspect of Shiva or Isa?

Siva can refer to Sambhu (Rudra) as well as Sada-Siva, depending on the context in which the term is used. He is Ishwara, no doubt, but he is not "param-ishwar". So who is this primeval lord? - Ishwarah ParamaH Krsnah sacchida-nanda Vigraha.....


I beg your pardon and forgiveness one more time as i raised questions to get more clarity.

No actually even I am having questions. I will let you know the answers to them once I get them clarified.

For example, one of the questions is - My understanding is that when Sambhu is Visnu-tattva, only in that case he accepts the adulterating principle, and in those cases when he is Jiva-tattva, he just empowers the jiva with pralaya-sakti, but I am not sure. Clarification is needed from some really advanced vaishnavas..

Krsna Das
11 March 2010, 08:41 AM
Grames,

I am putting up your message here so that we can continue our discussion. Your message is a piece of information for me, and hopefully for all others too.


Its very true that there are so many confusing idea surfacing in vaishnava schools about the position of Lord Shiva. I have just few points to share..

PanchaLinga represents SadaShiva and many Vaishnava Gurus did their tapas with this PanchaLinga. Do they worship Lord Shiva? I do doubt as they are very advanced vaishnava who lived their life for the devotion and glorification of Shri Vishnu alone.


Can you please elaborate which vaishnava school are you talking about here- The one which perform tapas with panca-linga? I didn't knew about this. I am curious.


Rudra is a Jiva and it is Shri who assigns that Job to the pious Jiva which has not much dispute.

Yes, Just that my additional 2 cents - If any such Jiva is not there then Lord himself accepts this post by the means of adulterating principle (I am correct? Why I am asking is because there are some "flaws" in this logic like - Lord never comes in direct contact with maya sakti (ätmärämasya tasyästi prakåtyä na samägamah - Brahma Samhita verse six), how is it possible for him to accept tamoguna of maya? But if he doesen't do this, then who takes the post of Rudra, if the Jiva is not available? :confused:


Antrayami is the pervasive feature of Lord Vishnu and only that tattva gives the justification of Lord being witnessing the actions of the Jiva. So, when a Vaishnava worship any form because of the limitations, he worship only the Antrayami which is nothing but Lord's gracious presence. ( Lord says, all worship are meant for Him only and being an Antrayami in everything in the universe, He receives every worship even if you worship a mortal).



I accept this. But I am not sure why you have brought up this sidhhanta here?


All names in the veda refers to Lord Vishnu primarily and when some purana or smiriti or even shruti vakya use the name Lord Shiva, Lord Indra etc. it actually refers to the Supreme Personality only. So, for a vaishnava, there is no confusion when someone say worship Shiva or other God as they know that they are worshiping Supreme Personality of God only.


Rudra also worship Lord Vishnu and Rudra is subordinate to Brahma and Vayu.

Oh yes, Rudra deva worships Lord Visnu - this is correct.

But he is subordinate to Brahma and Vayu? -

Actually i have heard opposite from my Guru Maharaja that only a Jiva who performs varnashrama-dharma duties perfectly for 100 births attains position of Brahma and a jiva who performs the occupational duty of brahma for 100 continuous births perfectly attains the position of Sambhu, and so Brahma is subordinate to Rudra. I think this is mentioned in Bhagwatam as well, but not sure. I will hunt the verse and let you know if I find one.

BTW, what do you ahve to say regarding this?

Of course Brahma is subordinate to Sada-siva - this is OK.


FINALLY, I was able to hunt this verse from bhagwatam, 4th Canto, Rudra-Geet, where Lord Rudra says:

sva-dharma-niṣṭhaḥ śata-janmabhiḥ pumān viriñcatām eti tataḥ paraḿ hi mām
avyākṛtaḿ bhāgavato 'tha vaiṣṇavaḿ padaḿ yathāhaḿ vibudhāḥ kalātyaye

“That person who performs his dharma unflinchingly for one hundred births attains the position of Brahmä. Those who have performed even more pious activities can attain my position, the position of Çiva. But a living entity born in an ordinary family who renders service to Bhagavän even for a very short time becomes a Vaiñëava and attains the supreme abode that I desire to attain after giving up this position
of Çiva.”


SadaShiva form is manoabimani Devata and who has dominion over all our indriyas. (Some replace this with Rudra but it is not true. Rudra has lordship over only one of the three Guna, Tamo and nothing more)

OK, I cannot comment since I am not sure. But keeping your statement in mind, one question arises, the "vaisnavanam yatha sambhu" in bhagwatam is said for Siva or Rudra? If Sada-siva then why name "sambhu" is used? So we cannot interchange the names Rudra and sada-siva?


SadaShiva is not annihilated when the Pralaya happens and He does not survive when MahaPralaya happens.



I have come to know opposite, that Sada-Siva's loka is eternal loka in spiritual sky whereas Rudra's abode is temporary. Please explain more, I want to know.


SadaShiva teaches the glory of Lord and i think you have already mentioned it. He is the Gopeshwara and He is the Ishwara as in ManoAbimani. Parameshwara refers to Iswara's Ishwara who is Lord Krshna.

Perfect.


Some say, Lord Anjaneya has portion of SadaShiva in him and combination of SadaShiva and Vayu made him the best of the Vaishnava who worships Lord Rama still being a Chiranjeevi.

Yes, because Siva always wants to serve the Lord. During krsna's pasttimes he came as Bhim (?) and during mahaprabhu's pasttimes he came as mixed incarnation (advaita-acarya).


If i come across more, i will share it with you and also please share with me whatever you learn. I am sure i also do not have complete knowledge about Lord Shiva in total.



But you have more than me.


If i mix Shavaites philosophy here, we both will be too confused so i am avoiding it. :)

Yeah, who cares for that **** :)

grames
11 March 2010, 11:10 AM
Dear Krshna Das,

Before i type any words, let me assert and accept that most of my points here are very much limited to my ignorance and very little exposure. So, i would consider them mostly as mere "speculation" and it may not have much merit for someone who wants to know the Truth to the fullest.

You asked:
The one which perform tapas with panca-linga? I didn't knew about this. I am curious.

Worshiping Lord Shiva with PanchaLinga is not just new to philosophical schools but it is one of the oldest tradition that we see from various Puranas and Ithihasas but the purpose and goal for such Tapas are all about knowing the Supreme Lord. (PanchaLinga in my speculation signifies SadaSiva). In Sri samparadya it is followed and still followed and in Brahma sampradaya, it is very much followed. Shri Vadiraja Thirta's tapovan still has this panchalinga for adventurous but spiritual seekers. I am also not very clear whether anyone that get initiated in this sampradayas can do this kind of Tapas or it is only for the Yatis. The later vaishnava schools are in to pure Bhava vritti and i am not sure whether they are in to Tapas or meditation.

Lord becoming Rudra is very new to me and i am not sure if there are any scriptural evidence to support it. If your Guru says so, it must be True. Rudra himself is not Tama but he is controller of that Tama or in other words, he gets lordship over this particular guna. To attain that post/designation, the Jiva has to be very pious and logically such soul will not have any Tamo to begin with and that particular jiva gets the highest mercy of Shri.

About Antrayami:
I accept this. But I am not sure why you have brought up this sidhhanta here?

The very reason why i mentioned it here is, the worshiper of Lord Shiva or Rudra etc. should know this Antrayami clearly so that they can get maximum boon/benefit from such worship. Forgetting the Antrayami in them will make your worship materialistic.

You said:
But he is subordinate to Brahma and Vayu?

In the Rujutva, the position of Rudra is not mentioned meaning that this designation is not progressive for any particular Jiva and in AmbriNIsukta Shri says,

yaM kAmaye tamtamugraM kRiNomi

So 'Rudra' designation is like a boon from Shri for some pious noble jiva. The Rujutva is much more pious and they are very close to Shri Hari and they are very special that they will always remember Shri Hari at all time. So, with that specialization, Rujus have much higher status in terms of their knowledge and devotion towards Lord and Rudra is like a LKG kid in front of Rujus where he has to accumulate the knowledge and devotion towards Lord to become Sesha. ( Rujus are very close in concept with the Nitya Sooris of Shri Sampradaya). Brahma is the highest Ruju and Vayu Latavya follows them. (Vayu incarnated as Shri Madhva and Latavya is the messenger between Rukmini and Shri Krshna and who came to the Vaishnava tradition as Shri VadiRaja). Nithya Sooris incarnated as the famous Alwars of Sri Sampradaya and they have established the Vaishnava-dharma ideals so long ago.

Ruju's promotion has different formula and it is different for Rujus and for a manusha (ordinary human). Brahma gets his completeness after 200 kalpa and ordinary jiva gets his completeness after just one kalpa. (i used the term completeness as it is more appropriate than moksha as moksha is not the goal for these type of Sadana or Sadaka). Brahma never becomes Rudra and i will sincerely doubt that as none of the Vaishnava sampradaya accept that. ( Brahma creates Rudra - Sri Samparaya 100% accept it directly... Brahma Sampradya accepts it as, it is a Jiva who Brahma creates becomes Rudra by the grace of Shri). Attaining the position of Brahma by 100 births by a ordinary jiva is something very new to me and also it will be too confusing as which one of the jiva who gets 100 birth will get to that position? Please let me know if any verse in SB supports such idea. ( If it is 100 kalpa, then Lord Grace will make that Jiva very special and can promote that jiva to Brahma pada but 100 birth is with in the limit of one brahma kalpa and i still require more information to accept this as possibility. Please ask your Gurudeva for more clarity). SB 4.24.29 Also i am wondering where from you got this translation? It doesn't look like Srila Prabupada's and he has a lot more explanation in the purport of this particular verse. (It is also mentioned herein that whoever executes his occupational duty (sva (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/s/sva)-dharma (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/d/dharma)) for one hundred births (for instance, if a brāhmaṇa (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/b/brahmana) continues to act as a brāhmaṇa (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/b/brahmana)) becomes eligible for promotion to Brahmaloka, the planet where Lord Brahmā (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/b/brahma) lives. There is also a planet called Śivaloka, or Sadāśivaloka, which is situated in a marginal position between the spiritual and material worlds. If, after being situated in Brahmaloka, one becomes more qualified, he is promoted to Sadāśivaloka. Similarly, when one becomes even more qualified, he can attain the Vaikuṇṭhalokas.)

So it is not about becoming Brahma but attaining the BrahmaLoka. I hope this clears a little clumsy cloud over my head. :)

Shiva-Tattva

As you said, Siva Tattva includes Rudra but the referent Sambu can refer either SadaShiva or Rudra based on the context. Rudra is still learning about Vishnu Tattva and SadaShiva is already Vishnu Tattva so that clarifies the context. ( Vaishnavam Yatha Sambhu can only indicate SadaShiva and not the learning incomplete Rudra)

About Shiva-Loka
I have come to know opposite, that Sada-Siva's loka is eternal loka in spiritual sky whereas Rudra's abode is temporary. Please explain more, I want to know.

ShivaLoka is marginal and not eternal :). Its in between (which is situated in a marginal position between the spiritual and material worlds). I hope you know the difference between Pralaya and MahaPralaya.

The Krshna on the banyan leaf is the only one left after MahaPralaya as per vaishnava faith. Just attaching that beautilful Kannan on BanyanLeaf.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3403/3252333571_3c306eefba.jpg

Krsna Das
11 March 2010, 12:47 PM
Dear Krshna Das,

Before i type any words, let me assert and accept that most of my points here are very much limited to my ignorance and very little exposure. So, i would consider them mostly as mere "speculation" and it may not have much merit for someone who wants to know the Truth to the fullest.

That is why we say, vaishnavas are humle.


You asked:
The one which perform tapas with panca-linga? I didn't knew about this. I am curious.

Worshiping Lord Shiva with PanchaLinga is not just new to philosophical schools but it is one of the oldest tradition that we see from various Puranas and Ithihasas but the purpose and goal for such Tapas are all about knowing the Supreme Lord. (PanchaLinga in my speculation signifies SadaSiva). In Sri samparadya it is followed and still followed and in Brahma sampradaya, it is very much followed. Shri Vadiraja Thirta's tapovan still has this panchalinga for adventurous but spiritual seekers. I am also not very clear whether anyone that get initiated in this sampradayas can do this kind of Tapas or it is only for the Yatis. The later vaishnava schools are in to pure Bhava vritti and i am not sure whether they are in to Tapas or meditation.

I must accept that this is new to me. As far as GV is concerned, there is no place for any such tapas for Siva, though we have a place for Bhava-vrtti for his as highest of vaishnavas. (again taking into account my ignorance)


Lord becoming Rudra is very new to me and i am not sure if there are any scriptural evidence to support it. If your Guru says so, it must be True.

Yes, this sidhhanta I have read in Siva-tattva, Sri Bhagwat-amrita-kana and in Brahma-samhita commentary given by my Guru Maharaj, and I accept it as it is.


Rudra himself is not Tama but he is controller of that Tama or in other words, he gets lordship over this particular guna. To attain that post/designation, the Jiva has to be very pious and logically such soul will not have any Tamo to begin with and that particular jiva gets the highest mercy of Shri.


This is correct. I don't differ to a slightest degree.


About Antrayami:
I accept this. But I am not sure why you have brought up this sidhhanta here?

The very reason why i mentioned it here is, the worshiper of Lord Shiva or Rudra etc. should know this Antrayami clearly so that they can get maximum boon/benefit from such worship. Forgetting the Antrayami in them will make your worship materialistic.


Fine. Antaryami is the all pervading feature or permatman present in them.


You said:
But he is subordinate to Brahma and Vayu?

In the Rujutva, the position of Rudra is not mentioned meaning that this designation is not progressive for any particular Jiva and in AmbriNIsukta Shri says,

yaM kAmaye tamtamugraM kRiNomi

So 'Rudra' designation is like a boon from Shri for some pious noble jiva. The Rujutva is much more pious and they are very close to Shri Hari and they are very special that they will always remember Shri Hari at all time. So, with that specialization, Rujus have much higher status in terms of their knowledge and devotion towards Lord and Rudra is like a LKG kid in front of Rujus where he has to accumulate the knowledge and devotion towards Lord to become Sesha. ( Rujus are very close in concept with the Nitya Sooris of Shri Sampradaya). Brahma is the highest Ruju and Vayu Latavya follows them. (Vayu incarnated as Shri Madhva and Latavya is the messenger between Rukmini and Shri Krshna and who came to the Vaishnava tradition as Shri VadiRaja). Nithya Sooris incarnated as the famous Alwars of Sri Sampradaya and they have established the Vaishnava-dharma ideals so long ago.


This sidhhanta is related to Sri Sampradaya? This is all very new for me.


Ruju's promotion has different formula and it is different for Rujus and for a manusha (ordinary human). Brahma gets his completeness after 200 kalpa and ordinary jiva gets his completeness after just one kalpa. (i used the term completeness as it is more appropriate than moksha as moksha is not the goal for these type of Sadana or Sadaka).


....


Brahma never becomes Rudra and i will sincerely doubt that as none of the Vaishnava sampradaya accept that. ( Brahma creates Rudra - Sri Samparaya 100% accept it directly... Brahma Sampradya accepts it as, it is a Jiva who Brahma creates becomes Rudra by the grace of Shri).

I have also read this somewhere that Brahma manifests Rudra but not remembering what was the source. Though in Brahma Samhita, it is mentioned clearly that he is born of the Maha-Visnu. Pretty confusing...


Attaining the position of Brahma by 100 births by a ordinary jiva is something very new to me and also it will be too confusing as which one of the jiva who gets 100 birth will get to that position? Please let me know if any verse in SB supports such idea. ( If it is 100 kalpa, then Lord Grace will make that Jiva very special and can promote that jiva to Brahma pada but 100 birth is with in the limit of one brahma kalpa and i still require more information to accept this as possibility. Please ask your Gurudeva for more clarity).


Yes, but this is what I have understood after reading some of his books (or misunderstood, don't know). I will let you know some sources, after hunting for them.


SB 4.24.29 Also i am wondering where from you got this translation? It doesn't look like Srila Prabupada's and he has a lot more explanation in the purport of this particular verse. (It is also mentioned herein that whoever executes his occupational duty (sva (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/s/sva)-dharma (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/d/dharma)) for one hundred births (for instance, if a brāhmaṇa (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/b/brahmana) continues to act as a brāhmaṇa (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/b/brahmana)) becomes eligible for promotion to Brahmaloka, the planet where Lord Brahmā (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/b/brahma) lives. There is also a planet called Śivaloka, or Sadāśivaloka, which is situated in a marginal position between the spiritual and material worlds. If, after being situated in Brahmaloka, one becomes more qualified, he is promoted to Sadāśivaloka. Similarly, when one becomes even more qualified, he can attain the Vaikuṇṭhalokas.)

Yes this transalation was given by my Maharaj in his book Brahma Samhita, it is not Prabhupadas. I will get this clarified from somebody.



So it is not about becoming Brahma but attaining the BrahmaLoka. I hope this clears a little clumsy cloud over my head. :)

Shiva-Tattva


As you said, Siva Tattva includes Rudra but the referent Sambu can refer either SadaShiva or Rudra based on the context. Rudra is still learning about Vishnu Tattva and SadaShiva is already Vishnu Tattva so that clarifies the context. ( Vaishnavam Yatha Sambhu can only indicate SadaShiva and not the learning incomplete Rudra)

That is what my understanding goes.

About Shiva-Loka
I have come to know opposite, that Sada-Siva's loka is eternal loka in spiritual sky whereas Rudra's abode is temporary. Please explain more, I want to know.


ShivaLoka is marginal and not eternal :). Its in between (which is situated in a marginal position between the spiritual and material worlds). I hope you know the difference between Pralaya and MahaPralaya.

Point to be noted. I will study this point further and get some information, so we can discuss further.


The Krshna on the banyan leaf is the only one left after MahaPralaya as per vaishnava faith. Just attaching that beautilful Kannan on BanyanLeaf.

Thanks. This is a peculiar south indian art.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3403/3252333571_3c306eefba.jpg[/quote]

grames
11 March 2010, 02:33 PM
Dear Krshna Das,

I just stated the fact and definitely i am very much ignorant to accept a praise as being humble. :)

Secondly, i want to throw one advice before i proceed elaborating my speculations further. As an initiated devotee, it is not good idea to seek too much outside your Guru's world as it always confuse you. So, i recommend sincerely with a caring heart that, pls refrain from researching in to other vaishnava tattvas. If you are not initiated, the doors are open to swim all across and even its ok to get lost.

I think i will answer for only one of your confusion which is not really a confusion. BS narrates manifestation of three Sambu and the last one who gets manifested at the juncture of eye brows is still not the Rudra we are talking about. That Sambu is like a prototype as how Brahma is still a protype at that stage of creation until He actually gets the real birth on the navel of Shri Vishnu. If you are allowed to read Srila Prabupada's translation, i think it will be all clear with out doubts.

Hare Krishna!

Krsna Das
12 March 2010, 02:23 AM
Dear Krshna Das,

I just stated the fact and definitely i am very much ignorant to accept a praise as being humble. :)

Secondly, i want to throw one advice before i proceed elaborating my speculations further. As an initiated devotee, it is not good idea to seek too much outside your Guru's world as it always confuse you. So, i recommend sincerely with a caring heart that, pls refrain from researching in to other vaishnava tattvas. If you are not initiated, the doors are open to swim all across and even its ok to get lost.


Yes that is correct; and it's not only that I should not seek too much outside, it's also that I do not feel and urge to do that. So that's why I asked if this is sidhhanta from Sri Sampradaya. I just want to discuss the GV sidhhanta with you, especially those tattvas which are centered around Brahma Samhita.


I think i will answer for only one of your confusion which is not really a confusion. BS narrates manifestation of three Sambu and the last one who gets manifested at the juncture of eye brows is still not the Rudra we are talking about. That Sambu is like a prototype as how Brahma is still a protype at that stage of creation until He actually gets the real birth on the navel of Shri Vishnu. If you are allowed to read Srila Prabupada's translation, i think it will be all clear with out doubts.

I am all the more confused. Sorry about this. I thought there are just two manifestations of Siva - Sada Siva and Rudra. I am pretty much confused between these two already , and who is this third one now? :D

My Guru Maharaj always encourages his disciples to read Srila PrabhupAda's books.

I know I am asking for too much from you, but if you can just point me to the Brahma Samhita web links or simply the verse numbers, I will study these three Siva's :confused: and if there are questions, we can discuss further.

----

One more thing, you said that the abode of sada-siva is also not eternal since it dissolves at the time of maha-pralaya. Is there any refernce from Brahma Samhita or Bhagwatam regarding this? If the references exist in other schools I am not very interested but if it is in Bhagwatam / BS etc then pls do let me know the verses. Thanks again.

Hare Krishna !

grames
12 March 2010, 06:22 AM
Dear Krshna Das,

I am glad and happy that you have taken my advice positively. I believe, pride out of humility is too dangerous. We all know the story of Narada Muni.

Since its only you who is engaged in this thread, i will also limit my sources of information to only GV school.

I guess this picture gives over all idea of Lord's expansions

http://www.gaudiya.com/image/manifestations.gif




For BS translations, use this link and read from verse 8.

http://www.dharmakshetra.com/sages/relaization%20of%20brahma.htm

Let us discuss after you finish reading them. ( They are not three Shiva literally though)

Hare Krshna!

Krsna Das
12 March 2010, 10:21 PM
Jai Radhe !

This is all becoming very interesting. Let me tell you why -

Last year, I was reading a book called Sri BhAgwat-amrita-kana which is composed by Srila Vishvantha Chakravarty, who is the Guru of Sri Baladeva VidhyabhUsana. The purports on this book are given by my Guru Maharaj. In this book, the avtAr-tattva is described, and while I was reading this book, I thought it is better to draw a chart in order to understand it fully, since this avtar-tattva is all very confusing.

And the chart which you have provided to me (thanks for this) comes out to be exactly similar to the one I had drawn last year, except some differences:

1. The chart which you have provided mentions that tad-ekatma rupa emanates from vaibhav-prakash rupa, but does not differentiate b/w the two. The chart which I had drawn says that vaibhav-prakas rupa are direct manifestations of swayam rupa sri krsna but with different moods and akara like balaram, chaturbhuja devaki nandan, and two armed Krsna (vasudev krsna). And the tadekatma rupa are again the direct manifestations of swayam rupakrsna, divided into two, on the basis whether these manifestations exhibit sakti-prakash (exhibition of power) to what degree. This is the difference b/w tadekatma and vaibhav-prakash rupa. But yes a similarity b/w tad-ekatma and vaibhav-prakash is that they always exhibit different moods.

2. There is third arm emanting from swayam rupa krsna (in my chart) which says Avesha-rupa which is further divided into two - Bhagwad-Avesha Rupa and Bhagwad-Saktyavesa Rupa. Bhagwad avesha Rupa manifest themselves to be Supreme Preson where as Bhgawad-Sakyta vesa Rupa think themselves to be the servant of Supreme. these Bhagwad Saktya vesa rupas are then manifested as swansa -expansions -> Saktya-vesa avtar -> Avtar and Vibhuti.

3. The chart does not mention the further expansions of vaibhava-vilasa rupas emanaiting from each murti of quadrupal expansion. Also, all the Lila-avtaras and manvantaravtaras are not mentioned.

4. I was wondering where should we place Channa-avtaras (Incarnation in disguise) That is also not mentioned in the book I was reading, nor teh chart you have provided.

5. I am unable to place Rudra Siva anywhere in this chart, for which we are doing our discussion here.

BUT anyways, for now, I think let us keep all these point 1-4 which I have mentioned above as - ON HOLD. We will discuss these when i create a seperate thread for AvtAr-tattva.

For now let us just concentrate on understanding Siva-Tattva. The link which you have provided is PrabhupAdas. I will come back to you when I read all the verses related to Siva tattva completely (though I had read it long time bAck and it is better to brush up myself before we discuss anything).

Looking forward to learn a lot from you.

Jai Radhe...

Krsna Das
15 March 2010, 05:20 AM
Radhe !
My comments on the BS verses. I have used the link http://vedabase.net/bs/5/en since the one you mentioned was not accessible from my
office.
=====
7:
Lord does not comes "directly" in contact with maya-sakti and at the same time is also not entirely cut off from her. He just places a
divine glance (Ikshana in sanskrit) on maya sakti.
8:
Causes of creation is described: Purusha's desire for procreation, Efficient principle (Maya Sakti) and Material principle (Sambhu).
Now Sambhu here, is described as dim halo of reflected affulgance of Virta-Purusha and is considred as an emblem of masculine mundane
creation.
Also, if you see the purport, it is mentioned that the seed of desire in mundane world is just a perverted reflection of the seed of
amorous desires found in divine abode, but is very far from it, and so it is just called it's "prototype".
====> So my understanding is that this "prototype" refers to "seed of desire in mundane world" and not the material principle (Shambu),
which just acts as the masculine emblem of virat purusa engaged by Supreme during creation of cosmos. You agree on this?
Also this Sambhu is not Sada-siva for sure, but he is Rudra-Siva or not, I am not sure until and unless I read purport for verse 10.
Also, The first phase of the appearance of the mundane desire is the mental principle ripe for procreative activity. What is the second
phase ? - It is illusory reflection of the original transcendental desire-seed -> FYI.
10:
====>If you read the purport, my understanding is that Rudra is simply a manifestation of Sambhu, in the form of effulgant masculine
symbol of procreation -
"Thereupon Śambhu, lord of pradhāna embodying the substantive principle of all material entities, who is the same as Rudra, the dim
reflection of the Supreme Lord's own divine glance, consummates his intercourse with Māyā, the efficient mundane causal principle."
45:
Sambhu or Rudra is described. Also Lord himself turns into Sambhu by accepting the adulterating principle -
"Godhead becomes a subservient when He Himself attains a distinct personality by the addition of a particular element of adulteration.
This personality has no independent initiative. The said adulterating principle is constituted of a combination of the stupefying quality
of the deluding energy, the quality of nonplenitude of the marginal potency and a slight degree of the ecstatic-cum-cognitive principle of
the plenary spiritual potency.
BUT THIS LINE IS VERY CONFUSING:
This specifically adulterated reflection of the principle of the subjective portion of the Divinity is Sadāśiva, in the form of the
effulgent masculine-symbol-god Śambhu from whom Rudradeva is manifested.
====> Now this says that this this adulterated subjective portion of virat purusha is Sada-Siva????? The above line "...Godhead becomes a
subservient when He Himself attains ..." this ctually means that Godhead himself becomes Sadasiva by accepting the adulterating principle?
What do you think, actually this logic does not hold true because of two reasons , which I will tell you later. For now can you pls
provide your understanding on this topic.
You can reply specifically to the places marked "====>"

Krsna Das
19 March 2010, 06:14 AM
Grames...Radhe Radhe !

So you did not post any comments to the above post. Are you very busy now a days?

grames
24 March 2010, 03:19 AM
Dear Krshna Das,

I read this post just now after long break and i am so sorry for not been able to respond to this earlier.

Shambu is very generic name and it can also refer Lord Krshna or Lord Vishnu based on the context. Also, its not always referent of a personality either. As you read BS verses, you realize that personification happens at later stages and the name appears much before the personification manifests. As i said earlier, Shambu can mean the primordial masculine principle, the seed of creation, all forms of Shiva and also Lord Krshna or Vishnu.

The confusion in 5.45 happens if you tend to think that, Lord Sada-Shiva is different from Lord Krshna though it is not the case. But, it will confuse you more if you want to understand the relationship between Lord Sada-Shiva and Lord Krshna by means of "Advaitic" oneness. Lord Sada-Shiva is a reflection of Lord Krshna but symbolize the mix of three of Lord Krshna's energies will be my simplest understanding.

I also want to remind one more thing here is that, i am not really very advanced in this topic and sharing only what i understood by reading SP's BS and also Srila Jiva Goswami's Sad Sandarpa. I would recommend you to read all the Sandarpa of Jiva Goswami if it is allowed by your Guru.

Can you also help me to read this Sri BhAgwat-amrita-kana? I am not sure where to get this knowledge and if it is in book format or e-book format, can you please share it with me.

Hare Krshna!

Krsna Das
24 March 2010, 03:51 AM
Jai Radhe...

Thanks for your answers and I will be contemplating on these for the timebeing, before I ask more.

You can download the books from here:

Shiva-Tattva: (really a very good book on gaudiya vaishnava philosophy on Siva Tattva)
http://www.purebhakti.com/resources/ebooks-a-magazines-mainmenu-63/cat_view/53-bhakti-books-download/31-english.html?start=15

Sri BhAgwatamrita-kaNa: (a very good book on avtar tattva)
http://www.purebhakti.com/resources/ebooks-a-magazines-mainmenu-63/cat_view/53-bhakti-books-download/54-hindi.html

Sad Sandarbhas...Yes I know these are considered to be a very high class books on Gaudiya philosophy, and for now I am just reading some small books of my Guru maharaja. (Remember I have been initiated last year only and before that I was associated with ISKCON for 8 years and during these 8 years I really didn't read or discuss elevated topics, probably I was not ready for these at that time)

Will speak again later.

Hari.

Krsna Das
24 March 2010, 06:13 AM
Lord Sada-Shiva is a reflection of Lord Krshna but symbolize the mix of three of Lord Krshna's energies will be my simplest understanding.


OK Prabhu,

For now, let us just concentrate our discussion on sada siva. (let us forget shambhu and rudra for now).

So you are trying to say that sada siva is same as krsna, just that lord accepts the adulterating principle consisting of three energies and manifests into sada-siva?

grames
24 March 2010, 06:55 AM
This is where the trick is :) at least to my ignorance.

Lord Sada-Siva is not Lord Krshna but Lord Krshna is not different from Lord Sada-Siva. This is the complexity of Shiva-Tattva and i am sure it is explained by your Guru Maharaj in his Shiva Tattva.

So, it is not possible to point out to a personality and name that personality as "Shambu" but it is like energy expansions of our beloved Lord Krshna where Lord Sada-Siva becomes complex combination of all three of His energy and yet different from Lord Krshna but simultaneously not different from Vishnu-Tattva. There was a very long chain of messages on GV discussion forum and it is not easy to isolate Vishnu-Tattva from Shiva-Tattva and that thread is still available. ( http://www.gaudiyadiscussions.com/topic_755.html)


So, if you are expecting a crystal clear picture of the "differences" between these Tattvas, no you are not going to find one from me for sure. :).

Only one clue i have where the RasaVada list out all the qualities that are "exhibited" by Lord Krshna and also what is exhibited by His expansions who fall in to various categories. ( Such differences are not to negate the possible presence of the essence but only mean to denote what they 'choose' to exhibit)

Atman
05 April 2010, 09:08 AM
This is where the trick is :) at least to my ignorance.

Lord Sada-Siva is not Lord Krshna but Lord Krshna is not different from Lord Sada-Siva. This is the complexity of Shiva-Tattva and i am sure it is explained by your Guru Maharaj in his Shiva Tattva.

So, it is not possible to point out to a personality and name that personality as "Shambu" but it is like energy expansions of our beloved Lord Krshna where Lord Sada-Siva becomes complex combination of all three of His energy and yet different from Lord Krshna but simultaneously not different from Vishnu-Tattva. There was a very long chain of messages on GV discussion forum and it is not easy to isolate Vishnu-Tattva from Shiva-Tattva and that thread is still available. ( http://www.gaudiyadiscussions.com/topic_755.html)


So, if you are expecting a crystal clear picture of the "differences" between these Tattvas, no you are not going to find one from me for sure. :).

Only one clue i have where the RasaVada list out all the qualities that are "exhibited" by Lord Krshna and also what is exhibited by His expansions who fall in to various categories. ( Such differences are not to negate the possible presence of the essence but only mean to denote what they 'choose' to exhibit)

In one translation it (brhg bhagvamitra) said after holding the position of Shiva for a thousand births, one becomes a vaisnava- engages in bhakti and attains Visnu-loka, if so, it just shows the standard required to reach pure spiritual world, if even Lord Shiva himself can't get there easily (despite being the highest vaishnava and urdhavereta yogi)

Stephen
29 April 2010, 02:59 PM
I understand that when a form of God is considered the Supreme manifestation, in a group's scriptures, that it is to instill devotion to their ishta devata, not a literal "my God is bigger than your God" type of thing.

grames
27 May 2010, 03:05 AM
Dear Stephen,

Learning things that we do not know yet is a very challenging process and keeping our ignorance aside and then allowing the truth to descend to our "self" is not so easy process. With our "ego" contamination, we want to visualize everything with the filters of limited knowledge and the developed faith we have acquired and accepted but with such defects, it is impossible to know and get even the glimpse of what the ultimate Truth is.

What is "Ista"?? Whose Ista? Are we going to believe that it is our "Ista" and to please our Ista God takes forms? If it is so, then our spiritual seeking will be purely based on our ISTA which is already the root cause of all the troubles we face in this material existence. Such ISTA cannot be the mean to perceive the ultimate Person or Ultimate Truth and it is practical and wise that with no ISTA or ICCHA only you can get the eligibility to pursue any sort of spiritual growth. In fact, it is even more subtle to say, ICCHA is still required but the ISTA has to develope with the right GNANA and a person with right GNANA cannot be having any ISTA as the outcome of his ego or 'I' ness. So, the true knowledge can only be obtained from scriptures and if you attempt to manufacture God with your ego based knowledge synthesis, you might derive a pleasing ISTA devata of your own but we are not talking about such ISTA devata but the Supreme Bagawan who exist regardless of your ICCHA or ISTA.

So, for Vaishnavas with the authority of the scriptures, Lord Vishnu is the Ultimate Bagawan and Lord Krishna is original Supreme Personality. This faith is not manufactured by some great Acharya's ISTA but by the rigorous study and understanding of the scriptures and the Truth revealed by such scriptures. There is no question of some individual's ISTA here.

For fun, if He is God, He is always bigger than everything else and everyone else. The problem comes only if you claim someone else as God. :)




I understand that when a form of God is considered the Supreme manifestation, in a group's scriptures, that it is to instill devotion to their ishta devata, not a literal "my God is bigger than your God" type of thing.

jaswant
27 May 2010, 06:16 AM
HARI BOL !!

I like this discussion...some of the things just go over my head...but i like the respect and honesty shown here...


"For fun, if He is God, He is always bigger than everything else and everyone else. The problem comes only if you claim someone else as God." ...

this is very very true !!

yours
jaydev

Krsna Das
01 June 2010, 04:01 AM
Hare Krsna....Dandavats grames prabhu...

So here are all the questions that I have asked from my Siksa-guru and the answers are also here.

The references from sastra is not mentioned here, because I accept the authority of my Guru and accept it as it is, especially because I have not seen any "contradicting" startement" in sastra till now, for the information provided.

This is FYI.

Q: Is Sada Siva non different and simultaneously different from Visnu -tattva?
A: Sada-Siva is Visnu-Tattva and not different from him.

Q: Why does Lord Visnu manifest as Sada-Siva?
A: To propagate the glories of Naam-prabhu and Visnu-Bhakti through Hari-Katha mentioned in various scriptures like Ramayana and Puranas etc. Devi partvati questions Lord Sada-Siva and he answers, through which the propagation of Sanatana Dharma takes place.

Q: Where is Lord Sada-Siva's abode?
A: It is above the tatastha-region (marginal region) within the adhyatmika-akasa but below the vaikuntha lokas. It is non destructable.

Q: Who attains his abode?
A: The bhaktas who develop strong faith in Siva after hearing the pasttimes of Hari from him attain this abode. They constantly hear Hari-Katha and also serve Lord Visnu (in form of sada-Siva) there.

Q: Who is Rudra-Siva then?
A: He is Visnu-Tattva, but with an adulterating principle (mAyik-vikAr) of three potencies - tamo-guNa of mAya-Sakti, swalpata-guNa of tatastha- Sakti, Cit+Samvit guNa of Cit-Sakti. So he is not pure visnu-tattva. His position is described as that of different as well as similar to Visnu-tattva, but he also not "pure-jiva-tattva" but also not "swamsa-tattva" because he accepts the swalpata-guNa of tatastha-Sakti. He is like a Lord who is in ddirect contact with mAya, though mAya cannot touch the Lord. In this way, the position of Rudra-Siva is unthinkable (avicintya).

Q: Where is the abode of Rudra-Siva?
A: Within the material sky, and his abode is temporary.

Q: Who goes to the abode of Rudra-Siva?
A: Those who worship Siva with faith as an independent form of God may go there, and attain the sanga of highest-vaisnava and then understand sidhhanta clearly. They are then either elevated to higher planates, or come back to this planet where they carry on their bhajana.

Q: Who propagates the cheating and Asurik philosophies like mAyAvAd?
A: Lord Rudra-Siva appears in the form of Sankracarya in Kali-Yuga to propagate this philosophy to athiests and Asuras in the form of Brahmins (Kalim Ashritya jayante rAkshasAh brahma yonisu - padma purana - Rakshsas are born as human beings and brahmins in kali yuga)

Q: Why does Lord accepts the position of Rudra-Siva?
A: For the cause of pralaya (annihilating the universe) and preaching false-philosophies to RakshasAs. He is adhiSthAtri-deva of tamo-guNa.

Q: Who is Sambhu?
A: Sambhu is not really a personal form of God. He is just a principle or a prototype that is menifested during the beginning of creation as "Sambhu-Linga" (the male masculine emblem of virAt-puruSa) - though not literally in that sense. It is just the "means" by which the Supreme Lord - Pratham puruSa accepts the indirect contact with mAya-sakti).

Q: "Vaisvana-nam yatha Sambhu" referes to whome?
A: Rudra-Siva because Sada-Siva is non-different from Visnu-Tattva.

Q: Is it correct that a jiva who fulfilsl ALL the duties of varnAsrama-dharma for 1000 life times, attain the position of Siva?
A: Yes, this is the verdict of bhAgwatam and it is a principle essentially followed by Gaudiya Vaisnava Sampradaya, as it is.

Q:How is this possible, because Sada Siva is Visnu tattva and Rudra Siva is adlterated principle of Vinsu-Tattva?
A: Such Jiwas attain the position of one of the ekadash-rudraa, whoch are the empowered incarnations of the Lord. Their position is again temporary, and their abodes are in material world only.

FYI, my face book account is this - http://www.facebook.com/sunilkumar.krsnadas

All glories to Lord Siva !

Yogkriya
17 July 2010, 05:59 PM
Hare Krsna....Dandavats grames prabhu...

So here are all the questions that I have asked from my Siksa-guru and the answers are also here.

The references from sastra is not mentioned here, because I accept the authority of my Guru and accept it as it is, especially because I have not seen any "contradicting" startement" in sastra till now, for the information provided.

This is FYI.

Q: Is Sada Siva non different and simultaneously different from Visnu -tattva?
A: Sada-Siva is Visnu-Tattva and not different from him.

Q: Why does Lord Visnu manifest as Sada-Siva?
A: To propagate the glories of Naam-prabhu and Visnu-Bhakti through Hari-Katha mentioned in various scriptures like Ramayana and Puranas etc. Devi partvati questions Lord Sada-Siva and he answers, through which the propagation of Sanatana Dharma takes place.

Q: Where is Lord Sada-Siva's abode?
A: It is above the tatastha-region (marginal region) within the adhyatmika-akasa but below the vaikuntha lokas. It is non destructable.

Q: Who attains his abode?
A: The bhaktas who develop strong faith in Siva after hearing the pasttimes of Hari from him attain this abode. They constantly hear Hari-Katha and also serve Lord Visnu (in form of sada-Siva) there.

Q: Who is Rudra-Siva then?
A: He is Visnu-Tattva, but with an adulterating principle (mAyik-vikAr) of three potencies - tamo-guNa of mAya-Sakti, swalpata-guNa of tatastha- Sakti, Cit+Samvit guNa of Cit-Sakti. So he is not pure visnu-tattva. His position is described as that of different as well as similar to Visnu-tattva, but he also not "pure-jiva-tattva" but also not "swamsa-tattva" because he accepts the swalpata-guNa of tatastha-Sakti. He is like a Lord who is in ddirect contact with mAya, though mAya cannot touch the Lord. In this way, the position of Rudra-Siva is unthinkable (avicintya).

Q: Where is the abode of Rudra-Siva?
A: Within the material sky, and his abode is temporary.

Q: Who goes to the abode of Rudra-Siva?
A: Those who worship Siva with faith as an independent form of God may go there, and attain the sanga of highest-vaisnava and then understand sidhhanta clearly. They are then either elevated to higher planates, or come back to this planet where they carry on their bhajana.

Q: Who propagates the cheating and Asurik philosophies like mAyAvAd?
A: Lord Rudra-Siva appears in the form of Sankracarya in Kali-Yuga to propagate this philosophy to athiests and Asuras in the form of Brahmins (Kalim Ashritya jayante rAkshasAh brahma yonisu - padma purana - Rakshsas are born as human beings and brahmins in kali yuga)

Q: Why does Lord accepts the position of Rudra-Siva?
A: For the cause of pralaya (annihilating the universe) and preaching false-philosophies to RakshasAs. He is adhiSthAtri-deva of tamo-guNa.

Q: Who is Sambhu?
A: Sambhu is not really a personal form of God. He is just a principle or a prototype that is menifested during the beginning of creation as "Sambhu-Linga" (the male masculine emblem of virAt-puruSa) - though not literally in that sense. It is just the "means" by which the Supreme Lord - Pratham puruSa accepts the indirect contact with mAya-sakti).

Q: "Vaisvana-nam yatha Sambhu" referes to whome?
A: Rudra-Siva because Sada-Siva is non-different from Visnu-Tattva.

Q: Is it correct that a jiva who fulfilsl ALL the duties of varnAsrama-dharma for 1000 life times, attain the position of Siva?
A: Yes, this is the verdict of bhAgwatam and it is a principle essentially followed by Gaudiya Vaisnava Sampradaya, as it is.

Q:How is this possible, because Sada Siva is Visnu tattva and Rudra Siva is adlterated principle of Vinsu-Tattva?
A: Such Jiwas attain the position of one of the ekadash-rudraa, whoch are the empowered incarnations of the Lord. Their position is again temporary, and their abodes are in material world only.

FYI, my face book account is this - http://www.facebook.com/sunilkumar.krsnadas

All glories to Lord Siva !

Dear Krsna Das,

Hare Krsna! Namah Shivaya!

I mean no disrespect, but some of the answers are simply laughable!!
A lot of the answers are a result of Sampradayik political philosophy that does not support authentic Vedic thought.
Like Lord Shiva spreading nonsense and so called mayawad coming as Shankaracharya. This is the result of a mistranslated 16th century non-Vedic scripture called Brahm Samhita by some Krsna devotee to glorify Krsna and put down the Shaivs. Even in that Shankaracharya is not clearly mentioned.

Other silly things like devotees of Shiva go to his abode or other higher planets and then have to come back and continue their "bhajan".
Also that devotees of Shiva hear "hari-katha" from Shiva and go to his abode to do more hari katha and worship Vishnu as Shiva in Shiva's abode.

lol!!! What a bunch of silly stories. All these so many different demarkations are confusing and made up by most Gaudiyas who show a clear deviation from pure bhakti. Why? Because Bhakti is not about this argument and demarkations. Its not about intellectual reasoning and politics of who is above whom.

The gopis were not intellectual. They were simple hearted loving devotees.
Not shastra flaunting pundits.
Bhakti can be learnt from Shri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. After him tons of literature, ow interpretations and newer scriptures were churned out.
What did Chaitanya write? That is important.

Why don't you ask this Shiksha Guru - Why did Krishna worship Lord Shiva standing on one leg for months together without food or water? What all boons was he granted by Lord Shiva and Goddess Parvati?

There are many falcies in the way of Gaudiya perspective and positioning of Lord Shiva. BUT there is a big difference of how Lord Krishna himself positions lord Shiva. So we see the sampradaya politics says one thing that does not agree with Lord Krishna. Needless to say that the 400 years old Gaudiya Sampradaya accepts even Krishna in parts and not wholly.
Things that Krishna says and are in line with Gaudiya philosophy are accepted. The one that he says differs from Gaudiya belief policies are not accepted and side tracked with some silly reason as not authentic etc.

The Gaudiyas ahve double standards on every step.
When Lord Krsna in Bhagvad Gita says people of "lower intelligence" worship demi-Gods, they immediately apply this to Lord Shiva to preach that Shiva is a demi-God. When Lord Krsna himself worships Shiva - doesn't that make him as of lower intelligence IF Shiva was indeed a demi-God??? This proves that Shiva is NOT a "demi-" God. To which this different aspects of Shiva in a complicated cunning way has been presented by Gaudiyas that was explained by the Siksha Guru.
Another double standard - Gaudiyas worship top vaishnavas. Chaitanya said to be the servant of the servant of the servant. Now if you consider Lord Shiva as topmost Vaishnava, why don't you worship him??
Infact Vishnu (Krsna, Rama) worshipped Lord Shiva in every incarnation.
Lord Ramachandra worshipped Lord Shiva very systematically taking proper initiation from sage Agastya, sages Vashishtha and Vishvamitra. The Gurus of Lord Rama and their teachings have no place in Gaudiya literature.
Lord Rama gives darshan to Goswami Tulasidas and Gaudiyas labeled his preachings as "Mayawad" and do not touch it.
Lord Krishna ardently sought the Pashupat initiation into Pashupaat Shiva Yog from great devotee of Lord Shiva and sage Upamanyu. Someone who is initiated into Pashupat Yog and practices becomes a staunch Shaiva.
So we see the virtues and deeds of Lord Krishna and see the great difference of the practices and philosophies of the Gaudiyas that don't have much in common.
Please accept the whole Vedic traditions.
The Vedas are not about Gaudiyas. Thanks.
Regards,
Hari boL!
YogKriya

grames
19 July 2010, 02:35 AM
Dear Krsna Das,

I am delighted to read this information from you and all the responses you have given increased my understanding and this is great help.

Even in these answers, there are lot of subtle points and it is not easy for an "ordinary" person to understand them.

Thanks for your time.
Hare Krshna!


Hare Krsna....Dandavats grames prabhu...

So here are all the questions that I have asked from my Siksa-guru and the answers are also here.

The references from sastra is not mentioned here, because I accept the authority of my Guru and accept it as it is, especially because I have not seen any "contradicting" startement" in sastra till now, for the information provided.

This is FYI.

Q: Is Sada Siva non different and simultaneously different from Visnu -tattva?
A: Sada-Siva is Visnu-Tattva and not different from him.

Q: Why does Lord Visnu manifest as Sada-Siva?
A: To propagate the glories of Naam-prabhu and Visnu-Bhakti through Hari-Katha mentioned in various scriptures like Ramayana and Puranas etc. Devi partvati questions Lord Sada-Siva and he answers, through which the propagation of Sanatana Dharma takes place.

Q: Where is Lord Sada-Siva's abode?
A: It is above the tatastha-region (marginal region) within the adhyatmika-akasa but below the vaikuntha lokas. It is non destructable.

Q: Who attains his abode?
A: The bhaktas who develop strong faith in Siva after hearing the pasttimes of Hari from him attain this abode. They constantly hear Hari-Katha and also serve Lord Visnu (in form of sada-Siva) there.

Q: Who is Rudra-Siva then?
A: He is Visnu-Tattva, but with an adulterating principle (mAyik-vikAr) of three potencies - tamo-guNa of mAya-Sakti, swalpata-guNa of tatastha- Sakti, Cit+Samvit guNa of Cit-Sakti. So he is not pure visnu-tattva. His position is described as that of different as well as similar to Visnu-tattva, but he also not "pure-jiva-tattva" but also not "swamsa-tattva" because he accepts the swalpata-guNa of tatastha-Sakti. He is like a Lord who is in ddirect contact with mAya, though mAya cannot touch the Lord. In this way, the position of Rudra-Siva is unthinkable (avicintya).

Q: Where is the abode of Rudra-Siva?
A: Within the material sky, and his abode is temporary.

Q: Who goes to the abode of Rudra-Siva?
A: Those who worship Siva with faith as an independent form of God may go there, and attain the sanga of highest-vaisnava and then understand sidhhanta clearly. They are then either elevated to higher planates, or come back to this planet where they carry on their bhajana.

Q: Who propagates the cheating and Asurik philosophies like mAyAvAd?
A: Lord Rudra-Siva appears in the form of Sankracarya in Kali-Yuga to propagate this philosophy to athiests and Asuras in the form of Brahmins (Kalim Ashritya jayante rAkshasAh brahma yonisu - padma purana - Rakshsas are born as human beings and brahmins in kali yuga)

Q: Why does Lord accepts the position of Rudra-Siva?
A: For the cause of pralaya (annihilating the universe) and preaching false-philosophies to RakshasAs. He is adhiSthAtri-deva of tamo-guNa.

Q: Who is Sambhu?
A: Sambhu is not really a personal form of God. He is just a principle or a prototype that is menifested during the beginning of creation as "Sambhu-Linga" (the male masculine emblem of virAt-puruSa) - though not literally in that sense. It is just the "means" by which the Supreme Lord - Pratham puruSa accepts the indirect contact with mAya-sakti).

Q: "Vaisvana-nam yatha Sambhu" referes to whome?
A: Rudra-Siva because Sada-Siva is non-different from Visnu-Tattva.

Q: Is it correct that a jiva who fulfilsl ALL the duties of varnAsrama-dharma for 1000 life times, attain the position of Siva?
A: Yes, this is the verdict of bhAgwatam and it is a principle essentially followed by Gaudiya Vaisnava Sampradaya, as it is.

Q:How is this possible, because Sada Siva is Visnu tattva and Rudra Siva is adlterated principle of Vinsu-Tattva?
A: Such Jiwas attain the position of one of the ekadash-rudraa, whoch are the empowered incarnations of the Lord. Their position is again temporary, and their abodes are in material world only.

FYI, my face book account is this - http://www.facebook.com/sunilkumar.krsnadas

All glories to Lord Siva !

grames
19 July 2010, 02:40 AM
Dear friend,

This thread is about "Gaudiya's" perspective and doesn't require your prejudices and judgments right? Your perspective here may be right but limited to only your perspective and it has no value with respect to Gaudiyas.

FYI, if we take arguments like you have posted here, we can go in circle and arrive at nowhere. Spiritual seeking is not to "GET LOST" at nowhere and it is not the idea of any of the Vaishnava tradition.

Gopi's are not dumb as you think but the great Jnani's who took birth by the grace of Lord to engage with Himself in various loving moods. With out proper information, you should be in a position to "learn" rather throw judgements.

Thanks

Kumar_Das
19 July 2010, 01:59 PM
Dear friend,

This thread is about "Gaudiya's" perspective and doesn't require your prejudices and judgments right? Your perspective here may be right but limited to only your perspective and it has no value with respect to Gaudiyas.

"Shiva is a demi-god"... :laugh:

You havent grasped the Bhagavad Gita at all!

Indeed people who accord a heirarchy between the devas and claim a Godhead (a specific deva being Supreme and others emanating from Him/Her) have lost their mind!

Shri Krishna hints Arjuna to stop worshipping Rig Vedic demi-gods(navagrahas(heavenly planets)/element(rig vedic)devas) and ancestor worship.

You arent "monotheists" at all...

Hinduism is all about debate. Thats how different sampradayas come about.

Nowadays there are gurus who tell their shishyas rumours about other sampradayas and ask them to plug their ears and ignore. - tsk! tsk! not at all like the olden days where everything was based upon arguementation leading to refutation or clarification. Whereby Brahmanas would travel to temples in every corner of India.

Sometimes it can get quite nasty even. Madhvacharya used to tease Advaitins crudely.


FYI, if we take arguments like you have posted here, we can go in circle and arrive at nowhere. Spiritual seeking is not to "GET LOST" at nowhere and it is not the idea of any of the Vaishnava tradition.

Who says will arrive at no where? You are under the assumption that your sampradaya is the most logical hence any arguements against it is futile.


Gopi's are not dumb as you think but the great Jnani's who took birth by the grace of Lord to engage with Himself in various loving moods. With out proper information, you should be in a position to "learn" rather throw judgements.

Thanks

Again it is you who is assuming that I dont have proper information.;)

Anyways, I'm done though.

If minding one's own business and not conversing about the Truth - then thats when there is no learning.

grames
20 July 2010, 02:39 AM
Dear Kumar Das,

First of all, the response is not for your post cos i believe this thread is not intended for any debate but to put forth a perspective. There is another thread where you can actually "debate" over this perspective and you can post your 'another' view and get engaged in "knowing" more.

Secondly, it is not true that i, as an individual not interested in debate but i would like to 'argue' with only those who can put substance, start thinking of the subject in clarity with support from the standards. In simple words, if learning is the objective it is going to be a great "Vada" to seek better vision and path to the Absolute Truth. Anything else is your objective like getting attention, showing off your skills or personally assuming others are wrong and i am right then its all useless arguments and waste of everyone's time.

Put forth your objections with proper references in a separate thread so that this can be a discussion with proper "knowledge" rather than an wish list of being "correct".

Thanks

Krsna Das
22 July 2010, 05:12 AM
Dear Krsna Das,

I am delighted to read this information from you and all the responses you have given increased my understanding and this is great help.

Even in these answers, there are lot of subtle points and it is not easy for an "ordinary" person to understand them.

Thanks for your time.
Hare Krshna!

Hare Krsna Grames Prabhu ! All glories to Vaisnavas and Tulsi Maharani !

Yes, it is true. Everybody cannot understand everything, and for this reason I am not even commenting/replying to the comments given by other people in this thread, simply because they are worthless for me. Anyways, this discussion was between you and me only, for understanding this sidhhanta.

I hope your bhajan is going on fine. I pray for the dust of lotus feet of all vaisnavas.

Daso'asmi
Krsna Das

Yogkriya
25 July 2010, 01:29 PM
Dear friend,

This thread is about "Gaudiya's" perspective and doesn't require your prejudices and judgments right? Your perspective here may be right but limited to only your perspective and it has no value with respect to Gaudiyas.

FYI, if we take arguments like you have posted here, we can go in circle and arrive at nowhere. Spiritual seeking is not to "GET LOST" at nowhere and it is not the idea of any of the Vaishnava tradition.

Gopi's are not dumb as you think but the great Jnani's who took birth by the grace of Lord to engage with Himself in various loving moods. With out proper information, you should be in a position to "learn" rather throw judgements.

Thanks

Dear Grames,

I don't know what country you come from and how you got introduced to the Indian Vedic culture (or did you?), but I've been living in it all my life in India since birth. Not just reading books limited to Gaudiya thought. Gaudiya thought is not older than 400 years old. Lately a lot more writings by later writers have been added.

I'm sorry to say but I've been burnt out by the hypocrisy and double standards on every step from organizational policies to sectarian philosophy. Having said that, I do not mean that I do not see good hearted sincere devotees and acharyas in it too. Surely they are there. And surely there is an authentic method of following bhakti yoga. BUT there is also a lot of other things along with it that are political.

Firstly, you go and preach your position to everyone. You tell them what is the position of Lord Shiva. Your sampradaya is focused on Krsna. Let the Shaivas take care of the Shiva if you don't?! When other authentic paramparas tell you also Vedic positions on Lord Shiva, you don't listen. BUT you want them to listen to your position.
Now should we accept a 400 year old concept about Lord Shiva or should we follow the great sages like Vashishtha who are a much much higher authority than Srila Prabhupad, and Bhakti Vinod Thakur??
Fpr one Lord Rama accepts Sage Vashishtha as Guru.

Why don't we find any mention of glorification of any Vedic sages in the Gaud sampradaya, except a little mention of a few stories of Kapila and Gautama perhaps or a couple of others?

You said Gopis weren't "DUMB". Kindly read again what I wrote in the previous post. Did I call Gopis as "Dumb"?? Why this over reactive dramatization?? They were not intellectuals. Gauds are followers of basically bhakti in the mode of Gopis. So why this over showdown of intellectual argumentations? I stand by the fact that Gopis were simple hearted loving beings for whom love of Krsna and attachment of him mattered most. Not winning arguments and fake philosophical concoctions.
But then as Sri Chaitanya said - " In this age of fight and ...."

So you guys cancel out all others' words as "Judgements" and "Prejudices" but your own words as supreme truth??! Wow! That's arrogant Prabhu! And a common tactic to not allow any other thought in to what you have already manufactured.

You asked me to learn. Very well. But if the Gaudiya perspective has a fault, then it should and must be challenged. I do not "throw judgements".
You guys are judgmental.
It's time you guys started accepting Lord Krishna as he is, fully. Not in bits and parts. Because the Gaudiyas accept Krishna in parts. When Lord says something that is in line with the sectarian philosophy, then you accept that. When Krishna says something that is not in line with your philosophy, then you side track it. And this side-tracking is done in various ways. Somethings by misinterpreting his words, sometimes by canceling it all together saying that its not sure if Krsna said it.

Can any Gaud pandit answer this - If Krishna said worshipping Demi God is low mentality, and if Shiva is a "demi-God", then why did Krishna himself worship Lord Shiva???
Not one Gaud can answer this straight. You will try to find a work around this by giving some reason or another. Because your egos cannot take it that Krishna worshipped Lord Shiva and bowed before him seeking impossible boons from him. Moreover Lord Krishna sought MahaPashupaat Diksha initiation from the great Rishi Upmanyu of great valour and enloghtenment before he overtook a very severe penance and worshipped of Lord Shiva.
A person initiated in the difficult Pashupaat yog becomes a staunch Shaiva and follows complete vows of Shaiv paddhati, wears ashes, tripunda, chants Om Namah Shivaya and the 10,000 names of Lord Shiva of which "Krishna" is one. Pashupat sadhna he performed to please Lord Maheswara!! SURPRISE!!?? Now you can quickly try hard to find some other reason, justification argument for it, but not accept it. Cuz its hard on the sampradaya conditioned Ego.

And there goes out accepting Krishna in all his activities and words.
You will also not accept the great Lord KRISHNA when he Himself speaks volumes about Lord Shiva to Yudhishthira. Rather you will accept some acharya's words 50 years back who never saw them.

My dear aspiring spiritual friend, this is no judgement or prejudice here. I do not differ from the Vedas. I do not quote from the manufactured parts of Brahmasutra that Lord Shiva has to come kill time spreading false philosophy as Shakracharya.
I accept Krishna and Shiva as the Vedic truth.

Let's accept Bhagvatam together and read an original verse from it that is spoken by none other than the first originator of your lineage Shri Brahma -
" O siva , I know that You are the Supreme controller(Parameswara), You are both the father and the mother of the entire cosmic manifestation and as the one ever auspicious and supreme brahman who is beyond cosmic manifestation" (SB 4:6:42 )


Jai Mahakaal!!
Namah Shivaya!!
Namah Bhagwate Vasudevaya!

Yogkriya.

Yogkriya
25 July 2010, 01:31 PM
Dear friend,

This thread is about "Gaudiya's" perspective and doesn't require your prejudices and judgments right? Your perspective here may be right but limited to only your perspective and it has no value with respect to Gaudiyas.

FYI, if we take arguments like you have posted here, we can go in circle and arrive at nowhere. Spiritual seeking is not to "GET LOST" at nowhere and it is not the idea of any of the Vaishnava tradition.

Gopi's are not dumb as you think but the great Jnani's who took birth by the grace of Lord to engage with Himself in various loving moods. With out proper information, you should be in a position to "learn" rather throw judgements.

Thanks

Dear Grames,

I don't know what country you come from and how you got introduced to the Indian Vedic culture (or did you?), but I've been living in it all my life in India since birth. Not just reading books limited to Gaudiya thought. Gaudiya thought is not older than 400 years old. Lately a lot more writings by later writers have been added.

I'm sorry to say but I've been burnt out by the hypocrisy and double standards on every step from organizational policies to sectarian philosophy. Having said that, I do not mean that I do not see good hearted sincere devotees and acharyas in it too. Surely they are there. And surely there is an authentic method of following bhakti yoga. BUT there is also a lot of other things along with it that are political.

Firstly, you go and preach your position to everyone. You tell them what is the position of Lord Shiva. Your sampradaya is focused on Krsna. Let the Shaivas take care of the Shiva if you don't?! When other authentic paramparas tell you also Vedic positions on Lord Shiva, you don't listen. BUT you want them to listen to your position.
Now should we accept a 400 year old concept about Lord Shiva or should we follow the great sages like Vashishtha who are a much much higher authority than Srila Prabhupad, and Bhakti Vinod Thakur??
Fpr one Lord Rama accepts Sage Vashishtha as Guru.

Why don't we find any mention of glorification of any Vedic sages in the Gaud sampradaya, except a little mention of a few stories of Kapila and Gautama perhaps or a couple of others?

You said Gopis weren't "DUMB". Kindly read again what I wrote in the previous post. Did I call Gopis as "Dumb"?? Why this over reactive dramatization?? They were not intellectuals. Gauds are followers of basically bhakti in the mode of Gopis. So why this over showdown of intellectual argumentations? I stand by the fact that Gopis were simple hearted loving beings for whom love of Krsna and attachment of him mattered most. Not winning arguments and fake philosophical concoctions.
But then as Sri Chaitanya said - " In this age of fight and ...."

So you guys cancel out all others' words as "Judgements" and "Prejudices" but your own words as supreme truth??! Wow! That's arrogant Prabhu! And a common tactic to not allow any other thought in to what you have already manufactured.

You asked me to learn. Very well. But if the Gaudiya perspective has a fault, then it should and must be challenged. I do not "throw judgements".
You guys are judgmental.
It's time you guys started accepting Lord Krishna as he is, fully. Not in bits and parts. Because the Gaudiyas accept Krishna in parts. When Lord says something that is in line with the sectarian philosophy, then you accept that. When Krishna says something that is not in line with your philosophy, then you side track it. And this side-tracking is done in various ways. Somethings by misinterpreting his words, sometimes by canceling it all together saying that its not sure if Krsna said it.

Can any Gaud pandit answer this - If Krishna said worshipping Demi God is low mentality, and if Shiva is a "demi-God", then why did Krishna himself worship Lord Shiva???
Not one Gaud can answer this straight. You will try to find a work around this by giving some reason or another. Because your egos cannot take it that Krishna worshipped Lord Shiva and bowed before him seeking impossible boons from him. Moreover Lord Krishna sought MahaPashupaat Diksha initiation from the great Rishi Upmanyu of great valour and enloghtenment before he overtook a very severe penance and worshipped of Lord Shiva.
A person initiated in the difficult Pashupaat yog becomes a staunch Shaiva and follows complete vows of Shaiv paddhati, wears ashes, tripunda, chants Om Namah Shivaya and the 10,000 names of Lord Shiva of which "Krishna" is one. Pashupat sadhna he performed to please Lord Maheswara!! SURPRISE!!?? Now you can quickly try hard to find some other reason, justification argument for it, but not accept it. Cuz its hard on the sampradaya conditioned Ego.

And there goes out accepting Krishna in all his activities and words.
You will also not accept the great Lord KRISHNA when he Himself speaks volumes about Lord Shiva to Yudhishthira. Rather you will accept some acharya's words 50 years back who never saw them.

My dear aspiring spiritual friend, this is no judgement or prejudice here. I do not differ from the Vedas. I do not quote from the manufactured parts of Brahmasutra that Lord Shiva has to come kill time spreading false philosophy as Shakracharya.
I accept Krishna and Shiva as the Vedic truth.

Let's accept Bhagvatam together and read an original verse from it that is spoken by none other than the first originator of your lineage Shri Brahma -
" O siva , I know that You are the Supreme controller(Parameswara), You are both the father and the mother of the entire cosmic manifestation and as the one ever auspicious and supreme brahman who is beyond cosmic manifestation" (SB 4:6:42 )

Its ironicail that the Gaudiyas leave the words of their sampradayas Adi Guru Shri Brahma (Brahma-Madhava-Gaudiya Sampradaya) and concoct various confusing definitions from the names of Lord Shiva about his position.
Let's be honest and accept this.

Please do not mistake my firmness as rudeness. I offer my humble obeisance and respects to you and all.

Jai Mahakaal!!
Namah Shivaya!!
Namah Bhagwate Vasudevaya!

Yogkriya.

Yogkriya
25 July 2010, 03:01 PM
Hare Krsna Grames Prabhu ! All glories to Vaisnavas and Tulsi Maharani !

Yes, it is true. Everybody cannot understand everything, and for this reason I am not even commenting/replying to the comments given by other people in this thread, simply because they are worthless for me. Anyways, this discussion was between you and me only, for understanding this sidhhanta.

I hope your bhajan is going on fine. I pray for the dust of lotus feet of all vaisnavas.

Daso'asmi
Krsna Das


Dear Krsna Das,

Hope your bhajan is going well.

Yes you are right not everyone can understand everything.
Then there are some confused concocted claims to precisely define the various form of Lord Shiva himself and his lilas that came about a couple of hundred years back.

Who can understand Lord Shiva??? Maybe only Krishna can.
The devotees of Krishna should go back to listening to the sweet lord Krsna regarding this, not concoctions of Kaliyuga. Lord Krishna very clearly and elaborately describes about Lord Shiva to Yudhishthira in front of Pitamah Bheeshm.
We put Krishna's authority above any other acharya here.

Regards,
Hari Hara Bolo!!

grames
06 August 2010, 07:35 AM
Dear Friend,

Thanks for such a long message and your time to write one. I am Indian born in India and living in India for all my life and have as much privilege as you about knowing, learning and practicing SD.

Its not just you but there are so many who believes that, you should make some statement and everyone else should buy it because you are indian and custodian of SD. Please do not have such mind set and it is not going to be useful for anyone that includes you. In fact, it is what you call "purely Political" rather having any intellectual or spiritual merits.

Before we discuss, i just wanted to know what is your displeasure here? What are you trying to convey? Are you telling Lord Shiva is worshipped by Lord Krshna so Lord Shiva is also supreme? Or are u contending that there is no difference between these two? I am not sure what are you in fact contending and classifying sampradaya teachings as partially political. Please explain that first.

If you say someone is not "intellectual" what does that mean?

Since you used the word "Authentic", please also remember that someone who choose/chose to follow a sampradaya will not give room for every idea for a simple reason that "What is taught by the poorvacharyas" are the only knowledge and methods and what others cook and serve has no value to such followers. If we start to adulterate with each and everyone's idea as valid, there wont be a sampradaya but just a mess and invididual's conglomerate of faith. I hope you are not talking about such messy "politically" right thing as "sampradaya". This is true to all authentic sampradayas be it Shiva or Vaishanva and if you want to deny it, i would expect you to enlighten me and others here about such "openness" inside at least one of these "Authentic" sampradaya.




If Krishna said worshipping Demi God is low mentality, and if Shiva is a "demi-God", then why did Krishna himself worship Lord Shiva???
First of all, you don't require a pandit to answer your above question and a least peanut brain like me can also answer. First of all, the idea of demi-god as some lowly personality is wrong. Vaishnava sampradayas do emphasize greatly on Bhagavata dharma before Bahavan Dharma and no one is considered less and all the bagavatas are above the individuals. For outsiders, it is very difficult to understand and calling someone as "prabu" is not a mere lip service for a sincere "vaishnava" and they sincerely believe the Bagavatas are above them. Srila Prabupada calls a newbie as "You are the best, perfect devotee" and that is the mind set of sincere vaishnavas. Bhagavan is the source of all the Guna and "worship" as a Guna is also with Bagavan in full and He does "worship" His Svamasa's and guide different types of Souls to perform such worship to get all the mercy of Him alone. No Gaudiyas say not to worship Lord Shiva and it is a wrong understanding of Gaudiya Siddanta. Gaudiyas are exclusively focused on only Lord Krshna and that does not mean they go on insulting other "Devatas". If you want straight answer, with out giving room to why and what, you are not going to be pleased because you are expecting a fixed answer to satisfy your belief. Remember, no vaishnava will ever throw their Acharyas teaching and try to stand politically correct by saying, ALL ARE SAME, ONE and EQUAL which is not the case naturally. Its not EGO but a true wisdom and divine knowledge of the Vaishnava acharyas and confronting it with out any idea about why and what is what we should understand as our "EGO".

If you are following Shaiva Siddanta and if that following is sincere and authentic, you please tell me the position of any other Devata ( demi-god ) as per the siddanta. Lets see if you can still stand politically correct.



I accept Krishna and Shiva as the Vedic truth.
Very true. But understanding this truth is not so easy unlike writing one simple statement like this. If you page through this thread, you will recognize the Gaudiya view on this and Shiva is Vishnu Tattva should say something about this truth that you have accepted. So, my humble request to you is, first understand what is communicated before making so many judgements and secondly, do not try to impose our mundane ranking for spiritual personalities. There is no first or second , high or low , vast and least and all such relational realities are only meant for our material world.

I will wait for your response...

Hare Krshna!

Yogkriya
08 August 2010, 06:46 PM
Dear Friend,

Thanks for such a long message and your time to write one. I am Indian born in India and living in India for all my life and have as much privilege as you about knowing, learning and practicing SD.
Its not just you but there are so many who believes that, you should make some statement and everyone else should buy it because you are indian and custodian of SD. Please do not have such mind set and it is not going to be useful for anyone that includes you. In fact, it is what you call "purely Political" rather having any intellectual or spiritual merits.

Dear friend Grames,
Namaskar!

Thank you for your nice post and reply as well as the questions. I was thinking what your name Grames means as an Indian..
I haven't made a statement for everyone to buy. I've simply pointed out a statement of a sampradaya's stance on Lord Shiva's position that varies from that of the Vedic sages like rishi Vashishtha and others. I do not claim to be a custodian of any spiritual doctrine simply because I am an Indian either. But yes I do carry and understand my spiritual heritage well, being a practicing yogi. I also know much of my country's history (not the classroom textbook version) that has been changed after the Mogul and British invasions. Today, a good number of Indians may have less or no interest in it.
The question defining different positions of forms of Lord Shiva reflects a particular sampradaya's stance on Lord Shiva and its spiritual merit may not be of much importance here. I am not simply repeating a vedantic siddhant here. Yog is essentially experiential. All forms of yoga must indulge into experiential result after shiksha, otherwise its a form of faith or belief alone. Or at the most intellectual understanding.
Who has experienced knowing the position of various forms of Lord Shiva here? I'd like to know one personality within the Gaud sampradaya who has experienced that. To understand Lord Shiva and his position is impossible for any devotee Gaud or not. Again, I would reflect back on the words of shri Bheeshm Pitamah on Lord Shiva. As we know, he was the most courageous, powerful, wise and intelligent being of his times. Even Arjuna didn't have enough prowess or intelligence to beat him. His words on Lord Shiva hold the truth and I will certainly accept them. Then comes this fine dissection of Lord Shiva's position revealing his each and every limitations/non limitations.
Since Gauds are not worshippers of Lord Shiva, their declaring and publishing "position and limitations" of Lord Shiva pertains to politics. It is not glorification nor it is insight revealed through Pashupat yog (as in the case of Krishn). Each time they talk about Shiva they say Shiva is special BUT NOT this and that and limited in such and such things.



Before we discuss, i just wanted to know what is your displeasure here? What are you trying to convey? Are you telling Lord Shiva is worshipped by Lord Krshna so Lord Shiva is also supreme? Or are u contending that there is no difference between these two? I am not sure what are you in fact contending and classifying sampradaya teachings as partially political. Please explain that first.

My displeasure is about constant enumeration of limitations of Lord Shiva (which besides the Gaudiya and a couple of other Vaishnava lines of philosophy do not exist), while glorifying Lord Krishna. Such a behavior is not seen in Lord Krishna or Rama - whose conduct I consider as THE Vedic example to be followed.
That is why this sampradaya trend I classify as having tinge of politics and deliberate subtle belittling. It's a way to belittle not very openly, but at the same time telling others that Shiva is lower and limited.
A devotee or a group of devotees (sampradaya) can be attached to one form of the Lord - Krishna / Rama.. they may love to meditate on that form alone and it is fine and wonderful. There can be no problems with it. They may follow one form of worship. That is alright, as it is their path to reach God. The problem occurs when you praise your preference and make sure you belittle another devotee's preference and love of God which may be as authentic and sincere as much as yours or maybe even more.
As a mundane material life example: I love my wife and think she is beautiful and sincere. I tell this to my friends too and they are happy for me. That is fine. But when I tell them - "hey see how beautiful and good my wife is, but let me tell you that your wife doesn't have a sense of dressing and she should work hard to improve her looks as she's not all that beautiful actually." - This is the work of ego. And this is what (unfortunately) some sampradayas do at a later stage as the founder goes away.
I'm not questioning the Guru parampara here. But the policy line of sampradaya. The word Sampradaya in my opinion is another such word just as the word Brahmacharya that is not used to its complete sense. When Sam = equally pradaya = giver, stops considering the equality and starts taking sides, then the meaning of the very word stops working. What Sampradaya was Lord Krishna into? He was a chandra vanshi? Lord Rama? Surya vanshi? They both worshipped Lord Shiva. It's an interesting observation. But they were Vaishnavas! The sampradayik sectarian Vaishnavas don't like to worship Shiva! That is also interesting.

Shaivas worship Shiva as the Supreme God. Vaishnavas worship Vishnu - Rama, Krishna as Supreme, Shaktas - the various forms of Goddess. When we look back at the times of Lord Krishna and Rama most people worshipped Shiva and Durga, people worshipped the Vedic devas too. It was a custom to worship Shiva in Nandagram, the Gopis also worshiped Shiva, Queen Kunti, Gandhari did, Sage Vashishtha (Rama's Guru), Markandey, and so on..

The difference between Vishnu and Shiva is there, but at the same time they are supreme too. And here is the secret in the words of Lord Shiva - "Hari is in my hear and I'm in his heart. This is the secret of secrets. Anyone who is my devotee and condemns Vishnu/Hari goes to Raurav Naraka and anyone who is devotee of Vishnu/Hari condemns me goes to Raurava Narak for thousands of years."

I consider myself a friend of Iskcon/Gaudiya sampradaya primarily because of the strong element of KRISHN bhakti in it. But do not accept the sectarian thoughts about certain things. Example: many senior Prabhupad disciples and many other Gaudiya vaishnavs consider that putting lord Shiva on the same level on the altar as Krishna is very "offensive" and should never ever be done. This is what the displeasure is about. If it was offensive, then how about Krishna and Rama bowing before Shiva, not to talk about sitting at the same level? So there are things that are concocted afterwards. What Shri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu gave is one thing, what so many other acharyas wrote afterwards may have deviations. For example, the same Gaudiya sampradaya / ISKCON that advertises widely itself as VEDIC, doesn't even start a fire sacrifice act with propitiating and worshipping Lord Ganesha who is the writer of the Vedas! Vyasdev dictated, Ganesha wrote.
The Vedic rule is that Ganesha and Guru should be propitiated and worshipped before any such ceremony or work. This was canceled by one of the Gaudiya acharyas at a later date.

So, the division keeps going on - Now there are so many sub sects from within the Gaudiya Sampradaya. Srila Prabhupad wrote his commentaries on Bhagvad Gita, now Narayan Maharaj has also written. Some other maharaj will also write, in order to have BG with his name on it and sell more copies. What's the difference? Its the same line of thought and philosophy!! Why this competition?!
Iskcon makes sure not to mention or include any writings of other great Vaishnav saints such as Goswami Tulasidas whom so many in India revere with deep respects and devotion. Goswami Tulasidas was fortunate enough to have direct darshan and contact of Lord Ramachandra, Hanuman and Lakshmana and be blessed by them. This work 'Ramcharitmanas' (Ramayana in simpler language) was authenticated by the lord himself. But they say his writings may have a hint of "Mayavad"! So keep him out! I guess Lord Rama wasn't able to see the mayavad in it. And Good. Meerabai? How many writings of Mirabai are mentioned in Gaud sampradaya? She was a great Krishna bhakti yogini. Not our sampradaya. Does not follow our exact guidelines. So no need to mention her. Only the bengali goswamis should be allowed..

Anyways, I hope I was able to explain what it is about.



If you say someone is not "intellectual" what does that mean?

- Well there is consciousness and there is grosser intellect. The work of intellect is to argue, judge, distinguish and see. Tark, vitark and many times also kutark - that I may translate as argument, counter-argument and ill-argumentation.
This may be a part of Vedic shastrarth, but doesn't have to be an essential element of Bhakti yog. From the point of Kundalini yog, the most important chakra associated with Bhakti is Ahahat and Lord Krishna gives a beautiful method combination of Kriya-bhakti yog to Arjuna meditating on the Anahat on the Lord.
The pure love bhakti does not necessarily distinguish between intellectual points of arguments, shlokas, definitions, rituals etc. As soon as the image or thought of your beloved comes, tears of divine love start flowing and you want to do anything or everything to simply please Him. Then you may or may not be a pandit. This was the situation with the Gopis. As Prabhupad also confirms, the gopis were illiterate and not intellectually very learned. But their passion was to please Krishna. They were soaked in divine love. Their knowledge and insight (as was revealed in discussion with Udhava), came not from intellectual brain work but from the revelations of higher consciousness as the spark of real Krishna Consciousness revealed to them.
When the chakras are activated in a yogi, his consciousness expands and dips deeper into the super consciousness. Deeper explanations on Vedic texts reveal themselves to him automatically. He doesn't have to study volumes after volumes for this and memorize stanzas, purport number etc. He reads the text and the inner meaning is revealed. Many times the divine knowledge comes from the vast reservoir of super consciousness that comes to him without a need to cram or read books.
Having said that the use of "viveka" or intelligence is encouraged in the shastras. Using a branch of knowledge depends on the viveka of the sadhaka. But not 'kutarka'. So a devotee may be one with intellectual prowess of a shastri / pandit, or maybe a simple hearted loving soul. The later is more essential for bhakti / devotion.



Since you used the word "Authentic", please also remember that someone who choose/chose to follow a sampradaya will not give room for every idea for a simple reason that "What is taught by the poorvacharyas" are the only knowledge and methods and what others cook and serve has no value to such followers. If we start to adulterate with each and everyone's idea as valid, there wont be a sampradaya but just a mess and invididual's conglomerate of faith. I hope you are not talking about such messy "politically" right thing as "sampradaya". This is true to all authentic sampradayas be it Shiva or Vaishanva and if you want to deny it, i would expect you to enlighten me and others here about such "openness" inside at least one of these "Authentic" sampradaya.

The sampradayas as we see today developed later. Within sampradayas following Krishna there are a number of mutually unacceptable differences. Sometimes one may look at Christianity for seeing this development. All of CHRISTianity started with following Jesus Christ. Today we see hundreds of different churches / sects of Christianity. Rather I call it CHURCHianity than CHRISTianity. Because they are all more about the individual CHURCHes rather than about Jesus, his life and the CHRIST within. Yet the topic of discussion within Churchian sects remain JESUS. One Christian sect church believes Jesus's feet were nailed on top of each other, the other church believes that they were nailed separaetly. There goes the fight. One church wants to make a cross gesture from right to left (Orthodox), another from left to right (Catholics) again problem. The Mormons have their own book of Mormon. Now there are different versions of the same Jesus. Many people are not interested in his sadhna, in the essence of his teaching and where he is coming from.
A similar case is with the various sampradayas at times. Fortunately in sects / sampradayas related to Vedic culture, there is much more to it than simply reading stories from a book.

The openness is not inside an authentic sampradaya. Because a sampradaya has to cater to one group of people - ones that accept one line of sadhna or philosophy. The openness is within the vast ocean like wide and deep Vedic Sanatana 'Hindu' Dharma. And this is the beauty of it. It contains in itself all the aspects of the Vedic Sanatana thought. A sampradaya is incomplete and limited in its thought process. The Vedic rishis were not limited. Their sadhnas were not limited. It is also true that a person in one lifetime can only follow so much. There can be one type of sadhna method.
Also, a devotee practicing bhakti sees the Vedic rishis as practicing bhakti, a dhyan yogi sees the aspects of their sadhna as that of dhyan sadhna and so on. But a more complete way of sadhna was practiced back then that was not limited to bhakti alone or dhyan alone.
If you worship Shiva, you are a Vedic Sanatana Hindu, if you worship Durga, you are also a Hindu, if you worship Ram, you are a Hindu, if you worship Shri Krishn, you are a Hindu. There is no limitation on the expression of divine love. And then the sampradayas give that particular sadhna paddhatiyan (doctrines) of worshipping your form of deity, whether it be Krishna, balgopal, Rama, Shiv, Durga, MahaVidha sadhna ...

To be more specific, I do believe that a person following the teachings and sadhna methods of Gaudiya sampradaya (whether he is following Iskcon or another sub-division of Gaudiya sampradaya), can initiate his contact with Lord Krishna and prepare a foundation to release his soul from the cycle of samsara.
So it is possible through other Vaishnava, Shaiv or Shakt sampradayas too.
And we maintain equal respect in this aspect to all 4 major Vedic sampradayas.
Rest are sub divisions that we consider part and parcel of the main without rejecting the main for glorification of that part.

I understand that a person belonging to one sampradaya may not give room for thought from another sampradaya. It is because his mind is focused on the teachings of his sampradaya. This is okay. And his thinking about his sampradaya's teachings as better is also ok.

But what I have realized, is that at the end of the day, when a sadhaka is highly advanced and developed a vision on a super conscious level, then the differences start becoming hazy. Remembering, the incident with shri Goswami Tulasidas. When he visited the temple of Dwarkadheesh, he refused to bow before the Krishna deity as his mind was steadfast on the image of Lord Rama. So he said only if you take bow and arrow in your arms and show me the image of Lord Rama will the head of this Tulasi bow before you. Shri Tulasidas was indeed deeply connected to the lord and instead of Lord Krishna's image holding a flute, he immediately saw Him holding bow and arrow as Lord Rama did. Needless to say, Tulasidas prostrated before Krishna doing dandavat with teats flowing on his cheeks in sheer ecstasy.
So yes you are right in saying that the sampradayik openness may become difficult to find. But it is encouraged, just as in Vedic times, as the sampradayik limitations became stronger during the "Bhakti kaal". These limitations were not so during the Vedic Kaal. Here I'm referring to 'sampradaya' as the sub sects and their further divisive sprouts. Just like Gaudiya 'sampradaya' is a sub sect of Vaishnavism.



First of all, you don't require a pandit to answer your above question and a least peanut brain like me can also answer. First of all, the idea of demi-god as some lowly personality is wrong. Vaishnava sampradayas do emphasize greatly on Bhagavata dharma before Bahavan Dharma and no one is considered less and all the bagavatas are above the individuals.

Unfortunately, I have seen enough examples of this during the past 25 years. Indeed all "bhagvats" are above the individuals. BUT the particular classification of "demi-semi-God is unVedic at many places and not in line with Vedic Sanatana thought, as sampradaya guidlines that came much later. One of them is classifying Lord Shiva as a "demi-semi - God. Enumerating his limitations is another. Amongst them concoctions like Shiva cannot liberate but only fulfill material desires, Shiva and scriptures talking about Shiva iare in mode of ignorance / tamo guna etc..
When we step outside the Gaudiya camp, we know that Shiva is never referred to as deva, but as MAHA deva and MAHESHWARA. Not just Ishwara but Maha-Ishwara. Adi-Anant - one without a beginning or an end.


For outsiders, it is very difficult to understand and calling someone as "prabu" is not a mere lip service for a sincere "vaishnava" and they sincerely believe the Bagavatas are above them. Srila Prabupada calls a newbie as "You are the best, perfect devotee" and that is the mind set of sincere vaishnavas. Bhagavan is the source of all the Guna and "worship" as a Guna is also with Bagavan in full and He does "worship" His Svamasa's and guide different types of Souls to perform such worship to get all the mercy of Him alone. No Gaudiyas say not to worship Lord Shiva and it is a wrong understanding of Gaudiya Siddanta.

Vaishnava or not, it is human nature to be attached to the ego. I do see and appreciate that sincere Vaishnavas are sincere people. Just as sincere Shaivas or Shaktas are also sincere devotees and humble. But I've also seen when disagreeing with their line of thought, their humbleness disappears in no time. Sometimes it resorts to abuse and even physical fight. But I guess then they are not sincere Vaishnavas with imperfections of ego. Such can be the case with people from other non-vaishnava sampradayas too.
Yes I have heard hundreds of times from Gaudiyas preaching its not a good idea to worship Lord Shiva. A few may be divided on this. The Iskcon Gaud devotee who showed me around Govardhan refused to step inside a Shiva temple!! Others say its offensive to put Shiva on same altar as Krishna, yet others say Krishna told us its not intelligent to worship demi-Gods and Shiva is just a "demi-God". Prabhupad for one never established any example of worshipping Shiva anywhere.
Even in common temple Iskon guidelines, it is instructed that IF in case Shivaratri is observed at an Iskcon temple, then it should be made very clear that Shiva is a "servant" and devotee of Krishna and only talk of Krishna should be conducted on Shivaratri. I believe Krishna, Arjuna or the pandavas did not celebrate Shivaratri in this spirit. But then they not bounded by a sampradaya or sect.


Gaudiyas are exclusively focused on only Lord Krshna and that does not mean they go on insulting other "Devatas". If you want straight answer, with out giving room to why and what, you are not going to be pleased because you are expecting a fixed answer to satisfy your belief. Remember, no vaishnava will ever throw their Acharyas teaching and try to stand politically correct by saying, ALL ARE SAME, ONE and EQUAL which is not the case naturally. Its not EGO but a true wisdom and divine knowledge of the Vaishnava acharyas and confronting it with out any idea about why and what is what we should understand as our "EGO".

I don't expect "political correctness" from gaudiya sampradaya, but Vedic correctness and Vedic culture as they extensively use the Vedic term for propaganda but do not at times reflect the Vedic rishis or sadhna paddhati.
Being focused exclusively on Krishna is fine. But then accept Krishna as a whole. Not just in bits and parts that is acceptable to sampradaya policies and philosophy. Krishna gives Arjuna dhyan Kriya meditating on Anahat or Agya chakra. This was done commonly in those days as part of Vedic sadhna. People's chakras were more activated. The sampradaya acharya Srila Prabhupad says in his book Nectar of Devotion that yogis are materialists because they meditate on their "body parts" such as chakras etc. To hell with political correctness, but dear friend, this is not in line with Vedic culture. With all due respects and obeisance, how can a person write or understand Bhagvad Gita AS IT IS without having the same understanding as Krishna??
Rather he should've been more honest and said it is Bhagvad Gita as per Gaudiya perspective and that would've been just. Krishna explains authoritatively different kinds of yogas. Difficult branches of yoga such as dhyan, kundalini, Kriya, samadhi are purely practical experiential based and for an acharya to comment on them authentically, needs for him to understand through, practice, experience, comprehension and then explaining. Srila Prabhupad commented on a subject that he never practiced!! How can an acharya write on dhyan kundalini yoga by mere "INTELLECTUAL" understanding of it?? This is not possible. Hence the explanation does not come from a practitioner. A Guru is one who practices and attains perfection in that practice. We call Lord Krishna as Yogeshwar.. Lord/ishwar of the yogis. One who is perfect in every type of Yoga. What Krishna says, can be understood after practicing something he says in its essence. Otherwise it is mere translation and commentary of own thoughts. Hence Srila Prabhupad's understanding of subtle chakras located in the subtle body as "material". In no way here, I'm trying to belittle his position. But simply, explain the problem area.

We see the way of understanding the words of shastras and shlokas in the behavior of Yudhishthira maharaj as a child when he was given a sanskrit shloka to learn and recite the next day. All kids in the class could recite it back except for Yudhishthira who failed to do so. So the teacher gives him another chance, another day, yet Yudhishthira fails. On the third day same story and on the fourth day however, the teacher scolds him and punishes him by making him stand outside. Another acharya passes by asking what's the matter. Yudhishthira truthfully explains that he has not been able to learn the shloka by heart yet. So the acharya asks him to tell him what the shloka is. the truthful young student Yudhishthira repeats the shloka effortlessly. The Acharya is surprised and says, but you know it perfectly well!! Why are you made to stand outside? Yudhishthira says, because it means contain your anger, fulfill your duties, do justice, be earnest in your efforts etc.. and I haven't been very good at some points, so I haven't been able to learn it.
I believe to learn even a few of the shlokas of Bhagvad Gita one may need a lifetime. Then what is the use of repeating shloka, page number etc.. Yog means realization through union.



If you are following Shaiva Siddanta and if that following is sincere and authentic, you please tell me the position of any other Devata ( demi-god ) as per the siddanta. Lets see if you can still stand politically correct.


Shaiv siddhanta also says that Shiva creates as Brahma, nourishes and preserves as Vishnu and annihilates as Rudra.
What sampradaya does this comes from ? - Brahma - " O siva , I know that You are the Supreme controller(Parameswara), You are both the father and the mother of the entire cosmic manifestation and as the one ever auspicious and supreme brahman who is beyond cosmic manifestation" (SB 4:6:42 )

I guess there is no question of "political correctness" here. As I explained earlier, I'm not after political correctness. Political correctness is about a group of people choosing words that may not hurt another group. Its not about that.
Its about the vastness of understanding God and accepting him in all his manifestations as is in Vedic culture. Not that this God is 78% that God is good but is 58 % etc. If God (Governing Order of Divinity) or Ishwara is infinite, how can you measure 58 % of infinite?! That is the work of intellect. That is the work of sampradayas. That - is the work of politically correct or incorrect acharyas eager to push forward the flag of their sampradaya.
Ishwar, Krishna or Shiva is not limited to a sampradaya. Just as Pure Super-Consciousness and bliss is not.



Very true. But understanding this truth is not so easy unlike writing one simple statement like this. If you page through this thread, you will recognize the Gaudiya view on this and Shiva is Vishnu Tattva should say something about this truth that you have accepted.

Yes right. They do say Shiva is Vishnu tattva through a very curvaceous explanation. But then on top of that they also say hey wait, Vishnu came out of Krishna and is not complete and is limited and below Krishna!!


So, my humble request to you is, first understand what is communicated before making so many judgements and secondly, do not try to impose our mundane ranking for spiritual personalities. There is no first or second , high or low , vast and least and all such relational realities are only meant for our material world.

I will wait for your response...

Hare Krshna!

I agree and appreciate no first second, high or low etc. but frankly its not what is usually told by Gaudiya vaishnavs anywhere. All I see is great passion for rankings and the infamous GOD POSITIONING AGENDA. This is followed with great enthusiasm in most lectures and explanations. You say mundane rankings of highest spiritual personalities meant for "material world"? For material people who never understand them completely? It is for propaganda preaching. And many times the overtones of our stuff better than others, can't be missed. The overtones of putting down the "HINDU" word is also prominent, distinguishing it from the Vedic Sanatana Hindu Dharma and calling it "hodge-podge" "confusing" by Prabhupad and followers. Of course it is understandable that when Prabhupad came to the west to establish his brand of Krishna movement, he might have felt a need to put down Hinduism as separate from Vedic to the unknowing westerners of the time as Durga, Shiva worship wasn't acceptable to Prabhupad.

Each time one sect takes one small part, a stream from Hinduism (Vedic Sanatana Dharma), and elaborates on it and puts around it some framework, it tries to establish its separate identity with it, and emphasizes that I'm not the ocean from which I came. The ocean contains it all. The stream emphasizes on a certain aspect of it. It's possible to follow the stream and reach God, or another stream from the ocean can be chosen to reach God. Purpose is to reach God. Not the positioning of the stream or condemnation of the ocean.

So its always a great pleasure to meet a Gaudiya / Iskcon (or any other devotee) who is humble and is interested in talking about the sweet Lord (Krsna/Rama/Shiva..) and benefit from satsang, rather than focus on the sampradaya politics.

Hope I was able to satisfy some part of your questions.

With respects and regard,
Jai Bhole Nath ki!
YogKriya.

Rasa1976
08 August 2010, 08:26 PM
Just as the Gańgā is the greatest of all rivers, Lord Acyuta the supreme among deities and Lord Śambhu [Śiva] the greatest of Vaiṣṇavas, so Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is the greatest of all Purāṇas. ~Srimad Bhagavatam 12.13.16

The worship of My devotees is the real worship of Me. In fact it is higher than worshipping My very self. -Srimad Bhagavatam 11.19.21

From these two verses it could be taken that worship of Lord Shiva is really higher than worship of Lord Vishnu, though (for the Gaudiyas) that worship would have to include Vishnu. (Seeing Shiva in relation to Krishna or Vishnu.)

Yogkriya
09 August 2010, 09:21 AM
Just as the Gańgā is the greatest of all rivers, Lord Acyuta the supreme among deities and Lord Śambhu [Śiva] the greatest of Vaiṣṇavas, so Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is the greatest of all Purāṇas. ~Srimad Bhagavatam 12.13.16

The worship of My devotees is the real worship of Me. In fact it is higher than worshipping My very self. -Srimad Bhagavatam 11.19.21

From these two verses it could be taken that worship of Lord Shiva is really higher than worship of Lord Vishnu, though (for the Gaudiyas) that worship would have to include Vishnu. (Seeing Shiva in relation to Krishna or Vishnu.)

I welcome your comments Rasa!
Its a pleasure to see the devotees of Shri Krishn expressing their love for him and respecting Lord of the Lords Maheshvara Shiva.

Srimad Siva-Gita

Chapter VII – Vision of the Cosmic Form

Rāma said:
What was asked by me, O all-pervasive Lord, that stands as such. Here, an answer was not received from You by me at all, O great Lord! 1
Your body, O Lord – being of limited measure – how is it the origination of all beings, their maintenance and dissolution? 2
How are the Deities bound to their respective duties stationed in You? How is it that all of them are one with You? How is it that the fourteen worlds (are one with You)? 3
O Lord! Even after hearing it from You, there is a great doubt in me. You must deign to dispel the doubt in my mind which suffers from incomprehension. 4
The Lord said:
Though the seed of the banyan tree is very tiny, the huge banyan tree always existed in it. Otherwise, how can that tree come out of that seed? 5
Similarly, O Rāma, the origination and dissolution of the beings take place in My body. Even a large mass of salt easily dissolves in water and is no more visible, but when (that water is) boiled that salt appears as before. 6
Just as light emanates every dawn from the solar sphere, similarly all the universe originates from Me, exists and then merges in Me. Everything is in Me. O Rāma of noble resolves! Know it thus. 7
Rāma said:
O great Lord! Just as for a person confused regarding directions, the confusion is not removed even when correctly informed, similar is my delusion. What shall I do? 8
The Lord said:
O Rāma! I will show you how all this, the moving and the unmoving beings of the world subsist in Me. But you will not be able to see this. O son of Daśaratha, I will endow you with divine vision. Through that, shedding all fears, behold the expanse of everlasting luminosity of Mine. 9-10
My majesty cannot be perceived through physical eyes either by human beings or by celestial beings without My grace. 11
Suta said:
Having said thus, the Lord blessed him (Rāma) with divine vision. Then he (Rāma) saw the form of the Lord resembling subterranean fire. 12
Seeing that (form) luminous like millions of lightening flashes and striking intense terror even among the brave, Rāma in sheer fright, collapsed on his knees to the ground. Rāma, the dauntless hero, fell prostrate on the ground and again and again praising (the Lord) then rising, looked as far as he could. Rāma saw the form of the Lord, the Destroyer of Tripura, with sidereal universes inside it looking like she-sparrows, in constellations of luminous blaze. 13-15
He saw (within the form of the Lord) the mountains like Meru, Mandara and Vindhyā, the seven seas, the sun and the moon, the Gods and the five elements. 16
The son of Daśaratha beheld the forests, the holy mountains, the fourteen worlds and the entire cosmic expanse. He saw the battles between the Devas and the Asuras; those born and yet to be born; the ten incarnations of Viṣṇu and the His sports in those incarnations. 17
O dvijas, He saw the defeat of the Devas, the burning of Tripura and the extinction of all that is born and yet to be born. Beholding all this, Rāma filled with fear, prostrated again and again. (At this point) true wisdom dawned on Raghunandana (Rāma), and he extolled Śankara with meaningful hymns that contain the very essence of the Upanishads18-21
Rāma said:
O Lord! The Destroyer of distress of those who take refuge in You! Be gracious! Be gracious! O Lord of the universe! O, Thou worshipped by the Universe! Be gracious! Thou the Bearer of the Ganges, with moon adorning Your crest! Protect me, helpless as I am, from the fear of births and deaths. 22
O Lord! This world, indeed, is born only from You, in You alone the created beings live always, O Śambhu! Into You alone they undergo merger, just like trees and creepers into the earth. 23
O Wielder of the trident! Brahmā, Indra and Rudra, the Maruts, the Gandharvas, the Yakṣas, Asuras, the community of Siddhas, rivers like the Ganges, the oceans, all of them live in the midst of Your person. O Moon-crested One! Everything is illusorily projected by Your māyā. In You alone, the universe attains perceptibility. All this is perceived by the common people mistakenly (as real), just as silver is seen in a seashell or a rope is mistaken for a snake. 24-25
Filling the entire universe with Your splendour, manifesting things by Your own resplendence, O God of Gods, without Your light, this universe cannot be perceived even for a moment. 26
Great things do not rest on flimsy support. One single atom cannot support the Vindhyā mountains. This universe rests on Your person through Your māyā alone. I am convinced now about this. 27
Just as a fear-causing snake appearing in the rope has not really come into being, nor exists, nor undergoes destruction, similarly is the universe too taking shape in You, through that sheer māyā of Yours, O Nilakaṇṭha. 28
When it is enquired as to Your body assuming the nature of being, the very basis for the world of manifestation, that itself is seen to be certainly due to my ignorance. Thou art wholly the nature of Consciousness and Bliss. 29
O Destroyer of Tripura, Thou alone, being praised, bestow upon the enjoyers the fruits of the eminently meritorious acts, performance of Vedic sacrifices and charitable acts. But even this statement is not fully true because there is nothing different from You at all. 30
The Sages declare those as deluded by ignorance who mistakenly think that Śiva, Lord of the Himālayas, is pleased by external acts of worship and services. How can there be any desire for pleasure for one who is formless? 31
O Supreme Lord! Even the sovereignty of all the three worlds, You bestow as a reward on those people who offer You a leaf or a little water. I deem it all as the work of ignorance. 32
You pervade all the quarters and the intermediate directions. Thou art the universe, secondless, the infinite and the eternal. Even when this universe become extinct, there is no loss to You, just as there is no detriment to space (within a pot), when the pot is broken. 33
Just as the one, single Sun in the sky gets its many reflections in various vessels of water, so Thou, O Lord, art (variously) reflected in different minds. 34
There is nothing to be done by You even when the world is created, protected and dissolved. Even then, You bestow heaven etc. on the souls beginninglessly embodied according to their mortal fruits. It all happens as in a dream. 35
O Śambhu! For the two inert bodies, the subtle (sūkṣma) and the gross (sthūla) there could be no consciousness without the Self. Therefore, the scriptures, O enemy of Tripura, speak of pleasure and pain experienced through Your reflection in them. 36
Prostrations to Thee, O Swan in the ocean of Existence and Consciousness; prostrations to Thee, O Blue-Throated One, the very form of Time; prostrations to Thee, the Destroyer of all sins; prostrations to Thee, the one (witness) experiencer of the functions of the mind, which after all is illusory. 37
Suta said:
Prostrating thus before the Lord of the universe, standing with folded hands before Him, the over-awed Rāma praised the supreme Lord in so many words. 38
Rāma said:
O Self of the universe! Withdraw this cosmic form of Yours. By Thy grace, O Śambhu, the ocean of the world (of existence) has been seen (by me). 39
The Lord said:
O Rāma, the mighty-armed! There is nothing other than I.
Suta said:
Saying thus, the Lord withdrew the Gods and the other (forms) into His own form. 40
Closing his eyes in sheer delight, Rāma again opened his eyes and saw the Lord standing over the tiger-skin on the crest of the (Himālaya) mountain. Rāma saw Lord Nilakaṇṭha with three eyes and five faces, donning the tiger skin, His person adorned with sacred ash, wearing the serpents as His bracelets and sacred thread, wearing matted locks, blazing like lightening. (He saw) the One, the Lord of the universe, with moon on His crest, the supremely adorable, assuring freedom from fear, with four arms, holding a battle-axe, with a deer in one hand. 41-44
Then prostrating, Rāma, at the Lord’s command, sat in front of Him. Then, the God of Gods told Rāma, “Whatever you want to ask, O Rāma, you can ask of Me. There is no preceptor for you other than I.” 45
Thus ends the seventh chapter called the Vision of the Cosmic Form in the form of a dialogue between Śiva and Rāma in the Śiva-Gītā an upaniṣad delivering Brahma-vidyā, and a yoga śāstra occurring in the Padma Purāṇa.

Rasa1976
09 August 2010, 09:30 PM
I welcome your comments Rasa!
Its a pleasure to see the devotees of Shri Krishn expressing their love for him and respecting Lord of the Lords Maheshvara Shiva.

Namaste Yogakriya,

I am wondering. Do Saivites regard Shiva's form as sat-cid-ananda-vigraha? Do they believe that there is no difference between Shiva's body and Himself, as do Vaisnavas of Vishnu or Krishna? What about Brahman? Is Shiva the source of Brahman in Shaivism?

I like to hear from scriptures. I had never heard of the Siva-Gita, thanks.

Krsna Das
11 August 2010, 01:10 AM
Dear Krsna Das,

I am delighted to read this information from you and all the responses you have given increased my understanding and this is great help.

Even in these answers, there are lot of subtle points and it is not easy for an "ordinary" person to understand them.

Thanks for your time.
Hare Krshna!

Hare Krsna grames ! Dandavat Pranamas !
All glories to our Guru Parampara !

I remember that both of us had different view on whether the planet of Sada-siva is marginal or situated in the spiritual sky. At that time I was not able to give you a pramana.

Here it goes from vayu-purana, it says that sada-siva loka is nitya-loka:


sri mahadeva lokas tu saptavaranato bahih
nityah sukhamayah satyo labhyas tat sevakottamaih

"But Sri Mahadeva's planet is outside of the seven layers of matter that cover the universe. It is eternal, blissful, real and attainable by His greatest devotees."

Srila Rupa Gosvami writes in Laghu Bhagavatamrta (43):

sadasivakhya tan murtis tamoguna varjita
"Unlike the ordinary Siva (Rudra-Siva), Sadasiva is beyond tamo-guna."

and Sripada Baladeva Vidyabhusana writes:

Sivaloke Vaikuntha dhamni
"Sivaloka (of Sada-Siva) is Vaikuntha-dhama."

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

How is naam-bhajan going on? Did you decide to take initiation, or you are still waiting? This human form of life (manush-deha) is a rare chance, and getting initiation from a nitya-sidhha-parikar of Lord is even more rare.

Praying to the lotus feet of Six Goswamis, by whose grace all the desires related to the pure love of Godhead are fulfiled, I end this note:

Sri Rupa-Sanatan Bhatta Raghunatha
Sri Jiva Gopal Bhatta Das-Raghunatha
Ei chaya gosaer kori charan vandan
yaha hoite vighn-nash abhishta puran

Daso'asmi
Krsna Das

Yogkriya
19 August 2010, 02:57 PM
Namaste Yogakriya,

I am wondering. Do Saivites regard Shiva's form as sat-cid-ananda-vigraha? Do they believe that there is no difference between Shiva's body and Himself, as do Vaisnavas of Vishnu or Krishna? What about Brahman? Is Shiva the source of Brahman in Shaivism?

I like to hear from scriptures. I had never heard of the Siva-Gita, thanks.

Namaste Rasa!

The concept of Sat-Chit-Anand is essentially Advait. Then the word "vigraha" has been added that is being referred to as the "body" that contains it.
I'd like to hear more about the "body" here. Body is usually referred to a solid 'material' physical structure. In the 'Hare Krsna' philosophy Krsna has a "spiritual body". The term "spiritual body" in itself a bit technically confusing, since if there is a body then its material. Spiritual comes from the root word SPIRIT. As per the Yogic doctrines there are seven different "bodies" inside the grosser physical body that surround the soul. These are also referred to as the "bodies".
SatChitAnand is absolute state of Bliss that is experienced in Nirvikalpa Samadhi. Yes beyond any doubt Lord Shiva is this Sat Chit Anand and is Par Brahm. As Yoga is more experiential and not a topic of discussion, the Yogis follow less of an argument, discussion path as in Vedantists where quote unquote at times seems more important than experience of the divine communion.
Shiva says he is origin of the universe, parbrahma (origin of Brahm). So says Lord Brahma, Rama, Krishna, Upamanyu and other sages.

The Shiv Gita is Shiv-Ram samvad.
After Lord Rama seeks Pashupat and Virja deeksha from the great shaiv sage Agastya, he takes up sadhna of Lord Shiva. When Shiva appears, Ramachandra expresses his state of mind and Shiva preaches. Here Shiva also shows him his universal form in which he also shows the ten avataras of Vishnu including the Krishna avatara (that was to be) and his killing of Kansa). This samvad is called Shiva Gita and is a part of the Padma Purana.
But of course you will not find it in the concentrated copy of Padma Purana published by the BBT and I'll be surprised if any of the Vaishnava sects publish any version of Padma Purana without omitting it from it.
Just like the BBT or any other Gaudiya publishers will never publish the part of Anushasan Parva from Mahabharata where Lord Krsna explains the position of Lord Shiva to Yudhishthira.
What I quotes earlier was from the scriptures.
Some more quotes:
Eka eva rudra na dvitīyāya tasthur ( Yajurveda 1:8:6 d)
ie., Rudra is truly one for the knowers of Brahman do not admit the existence of a second.

Shiva Adhikhyam
Essential Characteristics of supreme lord :

1) He should be source of all, protecter of all and destroyer as well.
2) He should ever possess the strength of godhead.
3) He should be the father of the universe
4) He should be the lord of all beings.
5) He should be blissful and undecaying.
6) He should pervade all things and all beings both in heavens and in earth ,through his lordship
7) None should overcome him.
8) He should be the 'mightest' of the mighty. ( not just simply powerful )
9) He should be the sovereign of entire universe.
10)He should have multiple forms. ( ie., forms of god)
11) He should be the heart of all gods(ie., all gods are just part and parcle of him only )
12 ) He should alone yieldth to no second.
13) He should be able to give liberation (moksha) from death cycle and grant immortality.

Now Let us analyze,as per vedas, whether lord Rudra Possess such qualities.

Rudra is the supreme manifested form of absolute Brahman/parama purusha ( Sivam ). Rudra himself manifests as different Gods like Soma,Agni,Vayu.Indra,Prajapati,Visnu,Maruts,Yama etc. All these gods are different aspects of Lord Rudra.

"Rudra by day, Rudra at night we honour with these our songs, the UNIVERSE'S FATHER. HIM GREAT AND LOFTY, BLISSFUL, imperishable(ACHYUTAM), LET US CALL SPECIALLY AS THE SAGE IMPELS US". ( Rigveda 6:49:10 )

"To Rudra bring these songs, whose bow is firm and strong, the SELF-DEPENDENT GOD with swiftly-flying shafts, The Wise, the Conqueror whom none may overcome, armed with sharp-pointed weapons: may he hear our call. " ( Rigveda 7 :46: 1 )

"He(Rudra) through his lordship pervades in all things and beings on the earth, on heavenly beings through his high imperial power." ( Rig veda 7:46:2 )


We Worship Tryambaka(shiva), Who spreads Fragrance and Increases nourishment, May He LIBERATE (moksha) us, like the cucumber from its stem, from Mortal life, and give us Immorality.( Rig veda 7 :59 :12 )


LORD OF ALL BEINGS ART THOU IN GLORY, Rudra, armed with the thunder, MIGHTIEST OF THE MIGHTY. Transport us over trouble to well-being repel thou from us all assaults of mischief. ( Rig veda 2:33:3 )


"With firm limbs, MULTIFORM, the strong, the tawny adorns himself with bright gold decorations: THE STRENGTH OF GODHEAD NEVER DEPARTS FROM RUDRA, HIM WHO IS SOVEREIGN OF THE UNIVERSE, THE MIGHTY. "( RigVeda 2:33:9 )


Homage to him who haunteth the mountains, and to him who is in form of Çipivista.(visnu) ( Yajurveda iv. 5.5 f )

Homage to you(rudra) who is sparkling hearts of the gods ( Yajurveda iv. 5. 9 p )


The Rudra in the fire, in the waters, in the plants, the Rudra that hath entered all beings, to that Rudra be homage ( Yajurveda v. 5. 9. i )


Soma ( sa + uma ) ie., Along with Uma. :

This form of rudra is benificient or sattwa in nature. The form of soma is 'divine knowledge.' which satisfies the spiritual quest of all. hence it is identified with "Rasa or liquid". obviously, Gods like indra,visnu etc have more thirst for soma. infact, they are born out of soma only.Soma (Sa-Uma) is the father of heaven, earth, Vishnu, and Indra. Soma is the seed prolific for birth of Adityas and Vishnu. He is the highest heaven where Vak resides.

"Father of sacred chants, Soma flows onwards, the Father of the Earth, Father of the Celestial region: Father of Agni, the creator of Surya, the Father who gave birth to Indra and Vishnu" (Rig Veda.IX.96.5)
NOTE : SOMA ( an aspect of Rudra ) IS THE FATHER WHO BEGET INDRA, AGNI,SURYA AND VISHNU

" [O Soma!]Father and generator of the gods, the skillful, the Pillar of the Heavens (ie. Linga), and supporter of Earth. Rishi and Illuminated Sage, greatest of people, apart and wise, Ushana (Shukracharya) in knowledge" (Rig Veda .IX.87.2-3)
NOTE: SOMA IS THE FATHER OF GODS AND SUPPORTER OF HEAVENS AND EARTH.

Rig veda 1 : HYMN CLXIV. Visvedevas.
34 I ask thee of the earth's extremest limit, where is the centre of the world, I ask thee. I ask thee of the Stallion's seed prolific, I ask of highest heaven where Speech abideth.

35 This altar is the earth's extremest limit; this sacrifice of ours is the world's centre.THE STALLION'S SEED PROLIFIC IS THE SOMA; THIS BRAHMAN HIGHEST HEAVEN WHERE
SPEECH ABIDETH.


The opinions of ISKCON and Gaudiya Sampradaya on Lord Shiva is faulty and offensive. Some of the prominent points of Iskcon/Gaudiya preaching on Lord Shiva:
1) ISK'CON' believes that siva is a demi god
2) Siva is not supreme as Krishna
3) Siva worshippers can get only 'material welfare'. They can't get spiritual benefit.
moksha(liberation) cannot be given by siva.
4) Siva does not have all 64 abilities. He has 55 qualities. Only supreme godhead Krishna shall have all 64 qualities.
5) Demons worship 'Siva'. He gets into angry mood quickly. He has 'tamo guna'.
6) Siva was born from Brahma's forehead.
7) ISKCON supports their claim by quoting from a scripture titled 'Brahma samhitha'
8) Shiva is top most worshipper but he is not top most worshipful.
9) Siva could not save 'Ravana' from the death.
10) Shiva is dependent and cannot grant anything spiritual without
Krishna's consent.
11) Shiva is chanting Hare Krishna mantra on beads.
etc..

Rudra is self dependent and independent. This was falsely and un-Vedicly preached as offensive by Srila Prabhupad. Unvedicly because the vedas do not claim so:
"To Rudra bring these songs, whose bow is firm and strong, the self-dependent God with swiftly-flying shafts,The Wise, the Conqueror whom none may overcome, armed with sharp-pointed weapons: may he hear our call." (Rigveda 7:46:1 )

Moreover Shiva, Rudra is hailed as the father of the universe in Rigveda:
"Rudra by day, Rudra at night we honour with these our songs, the Universe's Father.Him great and lofty, blissful, undecaying let us call specially as the Sage impels us. " (Rigveda 6:49:10)

Yajurveda:
There is Shri Rudram in Taittariya samhita of Yajurveda.(4.5 ). It is otherwise called shatharudriyam. let us see what it says about Rudra.
"Namasteastu bhavagan vishvesvaraya mahadevaya
triyambakaya triupurantakaya trikalagni kalaya kalaagni Rudraya nilakanthaya mrutyunjayaya sarveshvaraya sadashivaya
Sriman mahadevaya Namah ( First Anuvaka)
meaning:
"Let my salutations be to that great God who is the Lord of the universes; the great God who has three eyes and who destroys Tripura, the three Asura cities. To that God who is the Dandhya time when the three sacred fires are lit; who is Rudra the fire that consumes the universe; whose throat is blue; who has conquered death; the Lord of all; the ever auspicious one; salutations to that glorious and great God."

Let us see another verse from it
Namo Bhavaya Cha Rudraya Cha Namah Sharvaya Cha Pashupataye Cha
Namo Nilagrivaya Cha Shitikanthaya Cha
Namah Kapardine Cha Vyuptakeshaya Cha
Namah Sahasrakshaya Cha Shatadhanvane Cha
Namo Girishaya Cha Shipivishhtaya Cha (Fifth Anuvaka)
meaning:
Salutations to Him who is the source of all things and to Him who is the destroyer of all ills. Salutations to the destroyer and to the protector of all beings in bondage. Salutations to Him whose throat is black and whose throat is also white. Salutations to Him of the matted locks, and to Him who is clean-shaven. Salutations to Him who has a Thousand eyes and a hundred bows. Salutations to Him who dwells on the mount and who is in the form of Shipivista (Vishnu).

Vedik Rishis have gone even further . They are calling Rudra as 'Bhavaya' ie., 'source' . How can he be called source of everything ? Only creator could be the source of everything . They called him 'pasupati' .All living beings are called 'pashu', because it is a metaphor and 'Pati' means one who 'rules' or 'protects'. oh !! here he is called protector and Destroyer as well. All three activities ie., Creation, protection and Destruction by Rudra himself ??? How could he do all the three things ? They also called Rudra as 'shipivista'(vishnu) !! it is epithet of 'Vishnu' in the Yajurveda .

SVETASVATARA UPAN ISHAD of Yajurveda ( Oldest and one among the 11 primary upanishads )
"Prakriti is perishable. Hara, the Lord, is immortal and imperishable. The non—dual Supreme Self rules both prakriti and the individual soul. Through constant meditation on Him, by union with Him, by the knowledge of identity with Him, one attains, in the end, cessation of the illusion of phenomena. "( 1:10 svetasvathara upanishad )

Let us see what upanishads say about RUDRA

SVETASVATARA UPAN ISHAD of Yajurveda ( Oldest and one among the 11 primary upanishads )
"Prakriti is perishable. Hara, the Lord, is immortal and imperishable. The non—dual Supreme Self rules both prakriti and the individual soul. Through constant meditation on Him, by union with Him, by the knowledge of identity with Him, one attains, in the end, cessation of the illusion of phenomena. "( 1:10 svetasvathara upanishad )


"Rudra is truly one; for the knowers of Brahman do not admit the existence of a second, He alone rules all the worlds by His powers. He dwells as the inner Self of every living being. After having created all the worlds, He, their Protector, takes them back into Himself at the end of time." ( 3:02 svetasvatara upsanishad )

"He, the omniscient Rudra, the creator of the gods and the bestower of their powers, the support of the universe, He who, in the beginning, gave birth to Hiranyagarbha—may He endow us with clear intellect!" (3:04 svetasvatara upanishad )

"The Supreme Lord is higher than Virat, beyond Hiranyagarbha. He is vast and is hidden in the bodies of all living beings. By knowing Him who alone pervades the universe, men become immortal "( 3:07 svetasvathara upanishad )


"Seeking Liberation, I take refuge in the Lord, the revealer of Self—Knowledge, who in the beginning created Brahma and delivered the Vedas to Him". (6:18 svetasvatara upanishad )

oh !! what is this ? why Vedik rishis calling Rudra as supreme being ? O srila Prabhupada.. why don't you send your god brothers to vedik rishis?

(Note: Svetasvatara upanishad is not Shaiva upanishad. Shaiva agamas were not even there at the time. Moreover, if this Upanishad is indeed a Shaiva Upanishad, other sects of Hinduism such as Vaishnavas wouldn't have quoted its verses/mantras as authority in their respective treatises.There are many words which voice submission to God or Brahman (words such as Sharanam, Prapadye, etc.). This concept of devotion later found profound expression in the Bhakti Sutras and other treatises on Bhakti.)


Superiority of shiva from Bhagavata purana:
" O Lord siva , Those devotees who have fully dedicated their lives unto your lotus feet will certainly recognise as Paramātmā in each and every being, and as such they do not differentiate between one living being and another. Such persons treat all living entities equally. They never become overwhelmed by anger like animals, who can see nothing without differentiation ". ( Srimad bhagavatam 4:6:46 )
"O most auspicious lord, you have ordained the heavenly planets, the spiritual Vaikunthha planets and the impersonal Brahman sphere as the respective destinations of the performers of auspicious activities. Similarly, for others, who are miscreants, you have destined different kinds of hells which are horrible and ghastly. Yet sometimes it is found that their destinations are just the opposite. It is very difficult to ascertain the cause of this" ( Srimad bhagavatam 4:6:45)
"O Bhagavan shiva , you create this cosmic manifestation, maintain it, and annihilate it by expansion of your personality, exactly as a spider creates, maintains and winds up its web." ( Srimad Bhagavatam 4:6:43 )
"Lord Brahmā said: O supreme lord Śiva, I know that you are the controller of the entire material manifestation, the combination father and mother of the cosmic manifestation, and the Supreme Brahman beyond the cosmic manifestation as well. I know you in that way" ( srimad Bhagavatam 4:6:42 )

"O King, when that uncontrollable poison was forcefully spreading up and down in all directions, all the demigods, along with the Lord Hari Himself, approached Supreme Lord Śiva [Sadāśiva]. Feeling unsheltered and very much afraid, they sought shelter of him. ( Srimad Bhagavatam 8:7:19)
"The demigods Headed by Lord Sri Hari observed Supreme Lord S'iva sitting on the summit of Kailâsa Hill with his wife, Bhavânî, for the auspicious development of the three worlds. He was being worshiped by great saintly persons desiring liberation. The demigods offered him their obeisances and prayers with great respect" ( Srimad Bhagavatam 8:7:20 )
"The prajâpatis said: O God of all gods (Deva deva), Mahâdeva, Supereme soul of all living entities and cause of their happiness and prosperity, we have come to the shelter of your lotus feet. Now please save us from this fiery poison, which is spreading all over the three worlds." ( Srimad Bhagavatam 8:7:21)
"O lord, you alone are the cause of bondage and liberation of the entire worlds( sarva jagat) because you are alone its ruler (tvam ekaḥ sarva-jagataīśvaro ). Those who are advanced in spiritual consciousness surrender unto you, and therefore you are the cause of mitigating their distresses, and you are alone the cause of their liberation. We therefore worship Your Lordship." (Srimad Bhagavatam 8:7:22)
"O lord Shiva, you are self-effulgent and supreme. You create this material world by your personal energy, and you assume the names Brahmā, Viṣṇu and Maheśvara when you act in creation, maintenance and annihilation." ( Srimad Bhagavatam 8:7:23 )
" O Lord Shiva, You are the cause of all causes, the self-effulgent, inconceivable, and you are alone that Secret Para Brahman (tvaḿ brahma paramaḿ guhyaḿ ). You manifest various potencies in this cosmic manifestation. You are the Supreme soul and supreme personality of godhead (tvam ātmā jagad-īśvaraḥ) " ( Srimad Bhagavatam 8:7:24 )

tvaḿ śabda-yonir jagad-ādir ātmā prāṇendriya-dravya-guṇaḥ svabhāvaḥkālaḥ kratuḥ satyam ṛtaḿ ca dharmastvayy akṣaraḿ yat tri-vṛd-āmananti ( SB 8:7:25 )
"O lord Shiva, you are the original source of Vedic literature. You are the original cause of entire creation, the life force, the senses, the five elements, the three modes and the mahat-tattva. You are eternal time, determination and the two religious systems called truth [satya] and truthfulness [ṛta]. You are the shelter of the syllable oḿ, which consists of three letters a-u-m." ( Srimad Bhagavatam 8:7:25 )
"O Shiva, father of all planets, learned scholars know that fire is your mouth, the surface of the globe is your lotus feet, eternal time is your movement, all the directions are your ears, and Varuṇa, master of the waters, is your tongue." ( SB 8:7:26 )
O lord, the sky is your navel, the air is your breathing, the sun is your eyes, and the water is your semen. You are the shelter of all kinds of living entities, high and low. The god of the moon is your mind, and the upper planetary system is your head ( SB 8:7:27)
"O lord shiva, you are the three Vedas personified. The seven seas are your abdomen, and the mountains are your bones. All drugs, creepers and vegetables are the hairs on your body, the Vedic mantras like Gâyatrî are the seven layers of your body, and the Vedic religious system is the core of your heart" ( SB 8:7:28)
"O lord, the Vedas are represented by your five faces, from which the thirty-eight most celebrated Vedic mantras have been generated. Your Lordship, being celebrated as Lord Śiva, is self-illuminated. You are directly situated as the supreme truth, known as Paramātmā." (SB 8:7:29)
O lord, your shadow is seen in irreligion, which brings about varieties of irreligious creations. The three modes of nature - goodness, passion and ignorance - are your three eyes. All the Vedic literatures, which are full of verses, are emanations from you because their compilers wrote the various scriptures after receiving your glance ( SB 8:7:30 )
O Lord Girîsha, since the You are Brahman which is transcendental to the material modes of goodness, passion and ignorance, the various directors of this material world certainly cannot appreciate it or even know where it is. It is not understandable even to Lord Brahmâ, Lord Vishnu or the King of heaven, Mahendra ( SB 8:7:31)
"When annihilation is performed by the flames and sparks emanating from your eyes, the entire creation is burned to ashes. . What then is to be said of your destroying the Dakṣa-yajña, Tripurāsura and the kālagara ? Such activities cannot be subject matters for prayers offered to you. because, We all do not know how this happens " ( SB 8:7:32)

"Exalted, self-satisfied persons who preach to the entire world think of your lotus feet constantly within their hearts. However, when persons who do not know your austerity see you moving with Umā, they misunderstand you to be lusty, or when they see you wandering in the crematorium they mistakenly think that you are ferocious and envious. Certainly they are shameless. They cannot understand your Supreme Trascedental Reality". ( SB 8:7:33)
"Even personalities like Lord Brahmâ and other demigods cannot understand your position, for you are beyond the Truth (sat) and unTruth(Asat) (sad-asatoḥ parataḥ). Since no one can understand your actual nature (nāñjaḥ svarūpa-gamane). how can one offer you prayers? It is impossible. As far as we are concerned, we are creatures of Lord Brahmâ's creation. Under the circumstances, therefore, we cannot offer you adequate prayers, but as far as our ability allows we have expressed our feelings." (SB 8:7:34)
"O Supreme Ordinator ( maheśvara) , your actual identity is impossible for us to understand.(etat paraḿ prapaśyāmo na ) As far as we can see, your presence brings flourishing happiness to everyone. But your transcedental nature is unknown (avyakta-karmaṇaḥ) ( SB 8:7:35)
in spite of Bhagavatam repeatedly glorifying lord shiva as 'parabrahman' , the Wicked vaishnava Acharyas who are governed by 'EGO' refuses to accept Shiva as supreme lord. They resort to cheap tactics and shout ........ "it won't apply to shiva" , " it refers to antaryami vishnu who is in shiva"... etc..etc. But such evil remarks can never hide the truth.
Those Wicked Vaishnava fools who spit venom should keep their mouth shut.
They should follow what Naradha said in Narada pancharatra.
Narad Pancharatra:

"Shivo Harirhariha Shakshatchiva Eva Nirupitaha
Shivadveshi Haridrohi Vishnum Nityam Bhajanapi"
Meaning:
‘Shiva is Hari and Hari is none other than Shiva. An enemy of Shiva is an enemy of Hari, even though he may daily worship Vishnu.’


Shri Brahma -
" O siva , I know that You are the Supreme controller(Parameswara), You are both the father and the mother of the entire cosmic manifestation and as the one ever auspicious and supreme brahman who is beyond cosmic manifestation" (SB 4:6:42 )



Entire vedas ,Vedik rishis asked only Lord shiva for liberation.

tryambakaṃ yajāmahe sugandhiṃ puṣṭi-vardhanam
urvārukam iva bandhanān mṛtyor mukṣīya māmṛtāt

(Refer : Rigveda 7:59:12 or Yajurveda (Taittariya Samhita 1.8.6.i; VS 3.60)

MEANING :

We worship and adore you, O three-eyed one, You are sweet gladness, the fragrance of life, who nourishes us, restores our health, and causes us to thrive. As, in due time, the stem of the cucumber weakens, and the gourd if freed from the vine, so LIBERATE us from attachment and death, and do not withhold immortality


Asking for MOKSHA or to free them from attachment is surely not something which comes under material desire.

Lord Shiva is known as MAHESHWARA and MAHADEV. See what Lord Krishna says to Arjuna about Lord SHIVA in Bhagvad Gita:

upadrastanumanta ca
bharta bhokta mahesvarah
paramatmeti capy ukto
dehe 'smin purusah parah (Bhagavad Gita 13:23)

"Yet in this body there is another, a transcendental enjoyer who is MAHESHWARA, the supreme proprietor, who exists as the overseer and permitter, and who is known as Paramatma,the Supreme soul of universe".

There is no need for more quotes I suppose. And yes indeed Shiva is Sat-Chit-Anand. Satyam-Shivam-Sundaram.
Thank you.
Namah Shivaya!
Jai Mahakaal!

Yogkriya.

Yogkriya
19 August 2010, 03:17 PM
Dear friend/s,

Namaste!

The very thread proves that a subservient dependent position of Lord Shiva is
a mere "Gaudiya Vaisnava Perspective" only. Not a Vedic.
If Gaudiyas follow VEDAS, then there is no meaning or question of having another perspective than Vedic one and calling it a Gaudiya perspective. A Gaudiya perspective is not supposed to be different from what Rigved and Yajurved is saying about Lord Shiva. It should not be different from what Lord Krishna himself is telling Yudhishthira on Lord Shiva.
If in the name of 'Guru-parampara', it differs from what Krishna says, then the the parampara is not coming from Krishna. Krishna's disciple Arjuna goes to worship Shiva. Prabhupad considered worshipping Shiva as an "offense" to Krishna. So we see the sampradaya viewpoint differing drastically from Lord Krishna.

"Srila Rupa Gosvami writes in Laghu Bhagavatamrta (43):
sadasivakhya tan murtis tamoguna varjita
"Unlike the ordinary Siva (Rudra-Siva), Sadasiva is beyond tamo-guna."

No. As is revealed to Lord Rama by Shiva himself, all three Gunas of prakriti emanate from HIM but HE is not affected by them and is beyond them. SHIVA HIMSELF is beyond all three gunas of Sato, Rajo, Tamo and maya. He is sat-chit-Anand. Ever blissful.

Wishing you bliss!
Kind regards,
Hari-Haraya Namah!

Yogkriya

Rasa1976
19 August 2010, 07:50 PM
Shiva says he is origin of the universe, parbrahma (origin of Brahm). So says Lord Brahma, Rama, Krishna, Upamanyu and other sages.

The Shiv Gita is Shiv-Ram samvad.
After Lord Rama seeks Pashupat and Virja deeksha from the great shaiv sage Agastya, he takes up sadhna of Lord Shiva. When Shiva appears, Ramachandra expresses his state of mind and Shiva preaches. Here Shiva also shows him his universal form in which he also shows the ten avataras of Vishnu including the Krishna avatara (that was to be) and his killing of Kansa). This samvad is called Shiva Gita and is a part of the Padma Purana.


Namaste Yogakriya,

Thank you, I enjoyed the verses you quoted from the Rg and Yajur Vedas particularly.

When you explain however, "Shiva says he is the source of Brahm", wouldn't this imply bheda-bheda (identity in difference) as an ultimate reality for the Shaivite? Or is Shiva worshipped solely for the means of attaining nirvisesha-brahm? To myself, it would seem that since Brahm is imperishable, "the origin of Brahm" (as Shiva) would have an imperishable distinction over Atman. Hence; avyaya-svarupa or sat-chid-ananda-vigraha.

I kind of see the Puranas as a catalog of Ishta-devatas who more or less trade places with each other, even within the same Purana. Taken as a whole, it's hard for me to take out one deity's supremacy over another that seriously. Devotional service is taken as superior (at least in the Bhagavat), so the position of "servant" is not to be reviled, but rather as most exalted.

Normally, one is advised to study the sastra under the direction of a guru. The guru will empasize certain scriptures over others, partly so that the disciple doesn't get confused. Then this becomes a tradition, and so forged in the mind becomes so many Istha-devatas, often at the expense of others.

Darji
19 August 2010, 08:09 PM
Someone please shoot this thread!

The Gaudiyas can have what ever perspective of Shiva they want! you know why? because what they think does not affect me or anyone else here.

Yogkriya
25 August 2010, 04:45 PM
Namaste Yogakriya,

Thank you, I enjoyed the verses you quoted from the Rg and Yajur Vedas particularly.

When you explain however, "Shiva says he is the source of Brahm", wouldn't this imply bheda-bheda (identity in difference) as an ultimate reality for the Shaivite? Or is Shiva worshipped solely for the means of attaining nirvisesha-brahm? To myself, it would seem that since Brahm is imperishable, "the origin of Brahm" (as Shiva) would have an imperishable distinction over Atman. Hence; avyaya-svarupa or sat-chid-ananda-vigraha.

I kind of see the Puranas as a catalog of Ishta-devatas who more or less trade places with each other, even within the same Purana. Taken as a whole, it's hard for me to take out one deity's supremacy over another that seriously. Devotional service is taken as superior (at least in the Bhagavat), so the position of "servant" is not to be reviled, but rather as most exalted.

Normally, one is advised to study the sastra under the direction of a guru. The guru will empasize certain scriptures over others, partly so that the disciple doesn't get confused. Then this becomes a tradition, and so forged in the mind becomes so many Istha-devatas, often at the expense of others.

Namaste dear Rasa!

I do not explain what Shiva says. It is what the great lord Shiva says.
Bheda-bheda is the philosophy of Gaudiyas, essentially focused on the last 400 years.
The "differentiation" - identity in difference, duality and so on. The focus here is on "difference".
In Advaita, Shiva is everything. The very essence of atom.
Its not surprising that you didn't really read or accept the teachings of Lord Krsna on Lord Shiva, since you are asking what I'm explaining or what the so called "Shivaites" 'think or 'believe in'.
As per Pashupaat yog, Krishn is a staunch practitioner of Pashupaat yog as is evident from his own words.
This is the real BHED in understanding of the Gaudiyas. They find it hard to accept Lord Krishna when he is not confined to the philosophical frame of Gaudiya thought. And in Gaudiya line of thought Krsna cannot worship Shiva. But as is revealed from Krsna's own words, it is otherwise. So kindly read the thoughts of Lord Krishna and not differentiate between Shaivas and Krishnaits etc. as these are simply categories and differentiations.
Gaudiya hail "service" and the number one quality of a "servant" is HUMILITY. But when we put forth what is HIGHER and claim that our "service" is HIGHER then we fail as a servant, since we are seeking a position.
This is work of EGO. The Vedic scriptures do not start and end on Bhagvat.
In my humble opinion, God is infinity and it cannot be limited to 58%, 82% etc... 58% of infinity? My math fails me here. So I accept Lord Krsna in all his colors. When he is the cowherdsman, the enchanter of the simple hearted devoted Gopis and Gopas, when he is the hero and the subduer of the enemies in the battlefield, when he is the ideal disciple under the able guidance of Sandipan rishi and when he is in strict sadhna staunchly practicing Pashupat yog after diksha from rishi Abhimanyu standing on one leg pleasing Lord Shiva. He is the ideal yogi and grahastha. He is wonderful and all attractive in all his multifaceted leelas. :)

Isht - is the one whom you revere and are devoted to - may it be Shiva, Krsna, Rama, Ganpati, Bagla, Durga, Kali.. - this is not a major factor. Usually devotees get high on who is greater or lower etc.. thus engage into a God positioning agenda that is so famous in the Gaudiya camp. But what is more important is the level of bhakti, sadhna of the devotee, sadhak. I'm glad to talk to you and wish you enlightened level of contact with your ishta deity (be it Lord Krsna or Shiva). :)
Namaskar.
Blessings and warm wishes.
Yogkriya.

giridhar
26 August 2010, 09:45 AM
Namaste Rasa!

The concept of Sat-Chit-Anand is essentially Advait. Then the word "vigraha" has been added that is being referred to as the "body" that contains it.
I'd like to hear more about the "body" here. Body is usually referred to a solid 'material' physical structure. In the 'Hare Krsna' philosophy Krsna has a "spiritual body". The term "spiritual body" in itself a bit technically confusing, since if there is a body then its material. Spiritual comes from the root word SPIRIT. As per the Yogic doctrines there are seven different "bodies" inside the grosser physical body that surround the soul. These are also referred to as the "bodies".
SatChitAnand is absolute state of Bliss that is experienced in Nirvikalpa Samadhi. Yes beyond any doubt Lord Shiva is this Sat Chit Anand and is Par Brahm. As Yoga is more experiential and not a topic of discussion, the Yogis follow less of an argument, discussion path as in Vedantists where quote unquote at times seems more important than experience of the divine communion.
Shiva says he is origin of the universe, parbrahma (origin of Brahm). So says Lord Brahma, Rama, Krishna, Upamanyu and other sages.

The Shiv Gita is Shiv-Ram samvad.
After Lord Rama seeks Pashupat and Virja deeksha from the great shaiv sage Agastya, he takes up sadhna of Lord Shiva. When Shiva appears, Ramachandra expresses his state of mind and Shiva preaches. Here Shiva also shows him his universal form in which he also shows the ten avataras of Vishnu including the Krishna avatara (that was to be) and his killing of Kansa). This samvad is called Shiva Gita and is a part of the Padma Purana.
But of course you will not find it in the concentrated copy of Padma Purana published by the BBT and I'll be surprised if any of the Vaishnava sects publish any version of Padma Purana without omitting it from it.
Just like the BBT or any other Gaudiya publishers will never publish the part of Anushasan Parva from Mahabharata where Lord Krsna explains the position of Lord Shiva to Yudhishthira.
What I quotes earlier was from the scriptures.
Some more quotes:
Eka eva rudra na dvitīyāya tasthur ( Yajurveda 1:8:6 d)
ie., Rudra is truly one for the knowers of Brahman do not admit the existence of a second.

Shiva Adhikhyam
Essential Characteristics of supreme lord :

1) He should be source of all, protecter of all and destroyer as well.
2) He should ever possess the strength of godhead.
3) He should be the father of the universe
4) He should be the lord of all beings.
5) He should be blissful and undecaying.
6) He should pervade all things and all beings both in heavens and in earth ,through his lordship
7) None should overcome him.
8) He should be the 'mightest' of the mighty. ( not just simply powerful )
9) He should be the sovereign of entire universe.
10)He should have multiple forms. ( ie., forms of god)
11) He should be the heart of all gods(ie., all gods are just part and parcle of him only )
12 ) He should alone yieldth to no second.
13) He should be able to give liberation (moksha) from death cycle and grant immortality.

Now Let us analyze,as per vedas, whether lord Rudra Possess such qualities.

Rudra is the supreme manifested form of absolute Brahman/parama purusha ( Sivam ). Rudra himself manifests as different Gods like Soma,Agni,Vayu.Indra,Prajapati,Visnu,Maruts,Yama etc. All these gods are different aspects of Lord Rudra.

"Rudra by day, Rudra at night we honour with these our songs, the UNIVERSE'S FATHER. HIM GREAT AND LOFTY, BLISSFUL, imperishable(ACHYUTAM), LET US CALL SPECIALLY AS THE SAGE IMPELS US". ( Rigveda 6:49:10 )

"To Rudra bring these songs, whose bow is firm and strong, the SELF-DEPENDENT GOD with swiftly-flying shafts, The Wise, the Conqueror whom none may overcome, armed with sharp-pointed weapons: may he hear our call. " ( Rigveda 7 :46: 1 )

"He(Rudra) through his lordship pervades in all things and beings on the earth, on heavenly beings through his high imperial power." ( Rig veda 7:46:2 )


We Worship Tryambaka(shiva), Who spreads Fragrance and Increases nourishment, May He LIBERATE (moksha) us, like the cucumber from its stem, from Mortal life, and give us Immorality.( Rig veda 7 :59 :12 )


LORD OF ALL BEINGS ART THOU IN GLORY, Rudra, armed with the thunder, MIGHTIEST OF THE MIGHTY. Transport us over trouble to well-being repel thou from us all assaults of mischief. ( Rig veda 2:33:3 )


"With firm limbs, MULTIFORM, the strong, the tawny adorns himself with bright gold decorations: THE STRENGTH OF GODHEAD NEVER DEPARTS FROM RUDRA, HIM WHO IS SOVEREIGN OF THE UNIVERSE, THE MIGHTY. "( RigVeda 2:33:9 )


Homage to him who haunteth the mountains, and to him who is in form of Ēipivista.(visnu) ( Yajurveda iv. 5.5 f )

Homage to you(rudra) who is sparkling hearts of the gods ( Yajurveda iv. 5. 9 p )


The Rudra in the fire, in the waters, in the plants, the Rudra that hath entered all beings, to that Rudra be homage ( Yajurveda v. 5. 9. i )


Soma ( sa + uma ) ie., Along with Uma. :

This form of rudra is benificient or sattwa in nature. The form of soma is 'divine knowledge.' which satisfies the spiritual quest of all. hence it is identified with "Rasa or liquid". obviously, Gods like indra,visnu etc have more thirst for soma. infact, they are born out of soma only.Soma (Sa-Uma) is the father of heaven, earth, Vishnu, and Indra. Soma is the seed prolific for birth of Adityas and Vishnu. He is the highest heaven where Vak resides.

"Father of sacred chants, Soma flows onwards, the Father of the Earth, Father of the Celestial region: Father of Agni, the creator of Surya, the Father who gave birth to Indra and Vishnu" (Rig Veda.IX.96.5)
NOTE : SOMA ( an aspect of Rudra ) IS THE FATHER WHO BEGET INDRA, AGNI,SURYA AND VISHNU

" [O Soma!]Father and generator of the gods, the skillful, the Pillar of the Heavens (ie. Linga), and supporter of Earth. Rishi and Illuminated Sage, greatest of people, apart and wise, Ushana (Shukracharya) in knowledge" (Rig Veda .IX.87.2-3)
NOTE: SOMA IS THE FATHER OF GODS AND SUPPORTER OF HEAVENS AND EARTH.

Rig veda 1 : HYMN CLXIV. Visvedevas.
34 I ask thee of the earth's extremest limit, where is the centre of the world, I ask thee. I ask thee of the Stallion's seed prolific, I ask of highest heaven where Speech abideth.

35 This altar is the earth's extremest limit; this sacrifice of ours is the world's centre.THE STALLION'S SEED PROLIFIC IS THE SOMA; THIS BRAHMAN HIGHEST HEAVEN WHERE
SPEECH ABIDETH.


The opinions of ISKCON and Gaudiya Sampradaya on Lord Shiva is faulty and offensive. Some of the prominent points of Iskcon/Gaudiya preaching on Lord Shiva:
1) ISK'CON' believes that siva is a demi god
2) Siva is not supreme as Krishna
3) Siva worshippers can get only 'material welfare'. They can't get spiritual benefit.
moksha(liberation) cannot be given by siva.
4) Siva does not have all 64 abilities. He has 55 qualities. Only supreme godhead Krishna shall have all 64 qualities.
5) Demons worship 'Siva'. He gets into angry mood quickly. He has 'tamo guna'.
6) Siva was born from Brahma's forehead.
7) ISKCON supports their claim by quoting from a scripture titled 'Brahma samhitha'
8) Shiva is top most worshipper but he is not top most worshipful.
9) Siva could not save 'Ravana' from the death.
10) Shiva is dependent and cannot grant anything spiritual without
Krishna's consent.
11) Shiva is chanting Hare Krishna mantra on beads.
etc..

Rudra is self dependent and independent. This was falsely and un-Vedicly preached as offensive by Srila Prabhupad. Unvedicly because the vedas do not claim so:
"To Rudra bring these songs, whose bow is firm and strong, the self-dependent God with swiftly-flying shafts,The Wise, the Conqueror whom none may overcome, armed with sharp-pointed weapons: may he hear our call." (Rigveda 7:46:1 )

Moreover Shiva, Rudra is hailed as the father of the universe in Rigveda:
"Rudra by day, Rudra at night we honour with these our songs, the Universe's Father.Him great and lofty, blissful, undecaying let us call specially as the Sage impels us. " (Rigveda 6:49:10)

Yajurveda:
There is Shri Rudram in Taittariya samhita of Yajurveda.(4.5 ). It is otherwise called shatharudriyam. let us see what it says about Rudra.
"Namasteastu bhavagan vishvesvaraya mahadevaya
triyambakaya triupurantakaya trikalagni kalaya kalaagni Rudraya nilakanthaya mrutyunjayaya sarveshvaraya sadashivaya
Sriman mahadevaya Namah ( First Anuvaka)
meaning:
"Let my salutations be to that great God who is the Lord of the universes; the great God who has three eyes and who destroys Tripura, the three Asura cities. To that God who is the Dandhya time when the three sacred fires are lit; who is Rudra the fire that consumes the universe; whose throat is blue; who has conquered death; the Lord of all; the ever auspicious one; salutations to that glorious and great God."

Let us see another verse from it
Namo Bhavaya Cha Rudraya Cha Namah Sharvaya Cha Pashupataye Cha
Namo Nilagrivaya Cha Shitikanthaya Cha
Namah Kapardine Cha Vyuptakeshaya Cha
Namah Sahasrakshaya Cha Shatadhanvane Cha
Namo Girishaya Cha Shipivishhtaya Cha (Fifth Anuvaka)
meaning:
Salutations to Him who is the source of all things and to Him who is the destroyer of all ills. Salutations to the destroyer and to the protector of all beings in bondage. Salutations to Him whose throat is black and whose throat is also white. Salutations to Him of the matted locks, and to Him who is clean-shaven. Salutations to Him who has a Thousand eyes and a hundred bows. Salutations to Him who dwells on the mount and who is in the form of Shipivista (Vishnu).

Vedik Rishis have gone even further . They are calling Rudra as 'Bhavaya' ie., 'source' . How can he be called source of everything ? Only creator could be the source of everything . They called him 'pasupati' .All living beings are called 'pashu', because it is a metaphor and 'Pati' means one who 'rules' or 'protects'. oh !! here he is called protector and Destroyer as well. All three activities ie., Creation, protection and Destruction by Rudra himself ??? How could he do all the three things ? They also called Rudra as 'shipivista'(vishnu) !! it is epithet of 'Vishnu' in the Yajurveda .

SVETASVATARA UPAN ISHAD of Yajurveda ( Oldest and one among the 11 primary upanishads )
"Prakriti is perishable. Hara, the Lord, is immortal and imperishable. The non—dual Supreme Self rules both prakriti and the individual soul. Through constant meditation on Him, by union with Him, by the knowledge of identity with Him, one attains, in the end, cessation of the illusion of phenomena. "( 1:10 svetasvathara upanishad )

Let us see what upanishads say about RUDRA

SVETASVATARA UPAN ISHAD of Yajurveda ( Oldest and one among the 11 primary upanishads )
"Prakriti is perishable. Hara, the Lord, is immortal and imperishable. The non—dual Supreme Self rules both prakriti and the individual soul. Through constant meditation on Him, by union with Him, by the knowledge of identity with Him, one attains, in the end, cessation of the illusion of phenomena. "( 1:10 svetasvathara upanishad )


"Rudra is truly one; for the knowers of Brahman do not admit the existence of a second, He alone rules all the worlds by His powers. He dwells as the inner Self of every living being. After having created all the worlds, He, their Protector, takes them back into Himself at the end of time." ( 3:02 svetasvatara upsanishad )

"He, the omniscient Rudra, the creator of the gods and the bestower of their powers, the support of the universe, He who, in the beginning, gave birth to Hiranyagarbha—may He endow us with clear intellect!" (3:04 svetasvatara upanishad )

"The Supreme Lord is higher than Virat, beyond Hiranyagarbha. He is vast and is hidden in the bodies of all living beings. By knowing Him who alone pervades the universe, men become immortal "( 3:07 svetasvathara upanishad )


"Seeking Liberation, I take refuge in the Lord, the revealer of Self—Knowledge, who in the beginning created Brahma and delivered the Vedas to Him". (6:18 svetasvatara upanishad )

oh !! what is this ? why Vedik rishis calling Rudra as supreme being ? O srila Prabhupada.. why don't you send your god brothers to vedik rishis?

(Note: Svetasvatara upanishad is not Shaiva upanishad. Shaiva agamas were not even there at the time. Moreover, if this Upanishad is indeed a Shaiva Upanishad, other sects of Hinduism such as Vaishnavas wouldn't have quoted its verses/mantras as authority in their respective treatises.There are many words which voice submission to God or Brahman (words such as Sharanam, Prapadye, etc.). This concept of devotion later found profound expression in the Bhakti Sutras and other treatises on Bhakti.)


Superiority of shiva from Bhagavata purana:
" O Lord siva , Those devotees who have fully dedicated their lives unto your lotus feet will certainly recognise as Paramātmā in each and every being, and as such they do not differentiate between one living being and another. Such persons treat all living entities equally. They never become overwhelmed by anger like animals, who can see nothing without differentiation ". ( Srimad bhagavatam 4:6:46 )
"O most auspicious lord, you have ordained the heavenly planets, the spiritual Vaikunthha planets and the impersonal Brahman sphere as the respective destinations of the performers of auspicious activities. Similarly, for others, who are miscreants, you have destined different kinds of hells which are horrible and ghastly. Yet sometimes it is found that their destinations are just the opposite. It is very difficult to ascertain the cause of this" ( Srimad bhagavatam 4:6:45)
"O Bhagavan shiva , you create this cosmic manifestation, maintain it, and annihilate it by expansion of your personality, exactly as a spider creates, maintains and winds up its web." ( Srimad Bhagavatam 4:6:43 )
"Lord Brahmā said: O supreme lord Śiva, I know that you are the controller of the entire material manifestation, the combination father and mother of the cosmic manifestation, and the Supreme Brahman beyond the cosmic manifestation as well. I know you in that way" ( srimad Bhagavatam 4:6:42 )

"O King, when that uncontrollable poison was forcefully spreading up and down in all directions, all the demigods, along with the Lord Hari Himself, approached Supreme Lord Śiva [Sadāśiva]. Feeling unsheltered and very much afraid, they sought shelter of him. ( Srimad Bhagavatam 8:7:19)
"The demigods Headed by Lord Sri Hari observed Supreme Lord S'iva sitting on the summit of Kailāsa Hill with his wife, Bhavānī, for the auspicious development of the three worlds. He was being worshiped by great saintly persons desiring liberation. The demigods offered him their obeisances and prayers with great respect" ( Srimad Bhagavatam 8:7:20 )
"The prajāpatis said: O God of all gods (Deva deva), Mahādeva, Supereme soul of all living entities and cause of their happiness and prosperity, we have come to the shelter of your lotus feet. Now please save us from this fiery poison, which is spreading all over the three worlds." ( Srimad Bhagavatam 8:7:21)
"O lord, you alone are the cause of bondage and liberation of the entire worlds( sarva jagat) because you are alone its ruler (tvam ekaḥ sarva-jagataīśvaro ). Those who are advanced in spiritual consciousness surrender unto you, and therefore you are the cause of mitigating their distresses, and you are alone the cause of their liberation. We therefore worship Your Lordship." (Srimad Bhagavatam 8:7:22)
"O lord Shiva, you are self-effulgent and supreme. You create this material world by your personal energy, and you assume the names Brahmā, Viṣṇu and Maheśvara when you act in creation, maintenance and annihilation." ( Srimad Bhagavatam 8:7:23 )
" O Lord Shiva, You are the cause of all causes, the self-effulgent, inconceivable, and you are alone that Secret Para Brahman (tvaḿ brahma paramaḿ guhyaḿ ). You manifest various potencies in this cosmic manifestation. You are the Supreme soul and supreme personality of godhead (tvam ātmā jagad-īśvaraḥ) " ( Srimad Bhagavatam 8:7:24 )

tvaḿ śabda-yonir jagad-ādir ātmā prāṇendriya-dravya-guṇaḥ svabhāvaḥkālaḥ kratuḥ satyam ṛtaḿ ca dharmastvayy akṣaraḿ yat tri-vṛd-āmananti ( SB 8:7:25 )
"O lord Shiva, you are the original source of Vedic literature. You are the original cause of entire creation, the life force, the senses, the five elements, the three modes and the mahat-tattva. You are eternal time, determination and the two religious systems called truth [satya] and truthfulness [ṛta]. You are the shelter of the syllable oḿ, which consists of three letters a-u-m." ( Srimad Bhagavatam 8:7:25 )
"O Shiva, father of all planets, learned scholars know that fire is your mouth, the surface of the globe is your lotus feet, eternal time is your movement, all the directions are your ears, and Varuṇa, master of the waters, is your tongue." ( SB 8:7:26 )
O lord, the sky is your navel, the air is your breathing, the sun is your eyes, and the water is your semen. You are the shelter of all kinds of living entities, high and low. The god of the moon is your mind, and the upper planetary system is your head ( SB 8:7:27)
"O lord shiva, you are the three Vedas personified. The seven seas are your abdomen, and the mountains are your bones. All drugs, creepers and vegetables are the hairs on your body, the Vedic mantras like Gāyatrī are the seven layers of your body, and the Vedic religious system is the core of your heart" ( SB 8:7:28)
"O lord, the Vedas are represented by your five faces, from which the thirty-eight most celebrated Vedic mantras have been generated. Your Lordship, being celebrated as Lord Śiva, is self-illuminated. You are directly situated as the supreme truth, known as Paramātmā." (SB 8:7:29)
O lord, your shadow is seen in irreligion, which brings about varieties of irreligious creations. The three modes of nature - goodness, passion and ignorance - are your three eyes. All the Vedic literatures, which are full of verses, are emanations from you because their compilers wrote the various scriptures after receiving your glance ( SB 8:7:30 )
O Lord Girīsha, since the You are Brahman which is transcendental to the material modes of goodness, passion and ignorance, the various directors of this material world certainly cannot appreciate it or even know where it is. It is not understandable even to Lord Brahmā, Lord Vishnu or the King of heaven, Mahendra ( SB 8:7:31)
"When annihilation is performed by the flames and sparks emanating from your eyes, the entire creation is burned to ashes. . What then is to be said of your destroying the Dakṣa-yajńa, Tripurāsura and the kālagara ? Such activities cannot be subject matters for prayers offered to you. because, We all do not know how this happens " ( SB 8:7:32)

"Exalted, self-satisfied persons who preach to the entire world think of your lotus feet constantly within their hearts. However, when persons who do not know your austerity see you moving with Umā, they misunderstand you to be lusty, or when they see you wandering in the crematorium they mistakenly think that you are ferocious and envious. Certainly they are shameless. They cannot understand your Supreme Trascedental Reality". ( SB 8:7:33)
"Even personalities like Lord Brahmā and other demigods cannot understand your position, for you are beyond the Truth (sat) and unTruth(Asat) (sad-asatoḥ parataḥ). Since no one can understand your actual nature (nāńjaḥ svarūpa-gamane). how can one offer you prayers? It is impossible. As far as we are concerned, we are creatures of Lord Brahmā's creation. Under the circumstances, therefore, we cannot offer you adequate prayers, but as far as our ability allows we have expressed our feelings." (SB 8:7:34)
"O Supreme Ordinator ( maheśvara) , your actual identity is impossible for us to understand.(etat paraḿ prapaśyāmo na ) As far as we can see, your presence brings flourishing happiness to everyone. But your transcedental nature is unknown (avyakta-karmaṇaḥ) ( SB 8:7:35)
in spite of Bhagavatam repeatedly glorifying lord shiva as 'parabrahman' , the Wicked vaishnava Acharyas who are governed by 'EGO' refuses to accept Shiva as supreme lord. They resort to cheap tactics and shout ........ "it won't apply to shiva" , " it refers to antaryami vishnu who is in shiva"... etc..etc. But such evil remarks can never hide the truth.
Those Wicked Vaishnava fools who spit venom should keep their mouth shut.
They should follow what Naradha said in Narada pancharatra.
Narad Pancharatra:

"Shivo Harirhariha Shakshatchiva Eva Nirupitaha
Shivadveshi Haridrohi Vishnum Nityam Bhajanapi"
Meaning:
‘Shiva is Hari and Hari is none other than Shiva. An enemy of Shiva is an enemy of Hari, even though he may daily worship Vishnu.’


Shri Brahma -
" O siva , I know that You are the Supreme controller(Parameswara), You are both the father and the mother of the entire cosmic manifestation and as the one ever auspicious and supreme brahman who is beyond cosmic manifestation" (SB 4:6:42 )



Entire vedas ,Vedik rishis asked only Lord shiva for liberation.

tryambakaṃ yajāmahe sugandhiṃ puṣṭi-vardhanam
urvārukam iva bandhanān mṛtyor mukṣīya māmṛtāt

(Refer : Rigveda 7:59:12 or Yajurveda (Taittariya Samhita 1.8.6.i; VS 3.60)

MEANING :

We worship and adore you, O three-eyed one, You are sweet gladness, the fragrance of life, who nourishes us, restores our health, and causes us to thrive. As, in due time, the stem of the cucumber weakens, and the gourd if freed from the vine, so LIBERATE us from attachment and death, and do not withhold immortality


Asking for MOKSHA or to free them from attachment is surely not something which comes under material desire.

Lord Shiva is known as MAHESHWARA and MAHADEV. See what Lord Krishna says to Arjuna about Lord SHIVA in Bhagvad Gita:

upadrastanumanta ca
bharta bhokta mahesvarah
paramatmeti capy ukto
dehe 'smin purusah parah (Bhagavad Gita 13:23)

"Yet in this body there is another, a transcendental enjoyer who is MAHESHWARA, the supreme proprietor, who exists as the overseer and permitter, and who is known as Paramatma,the Supreme soul of universe".

There is no need for more quotes I suppose. And yes indeed Shiva is Sat-Chit-Anand. Satyam-Shivam-Sundaram.
Thank you.
Namah Shivaya!
Jai Mahakaal!

Yogkriya.



I SALUTE YOU !!!!!!!!! Great work cos it is TRUE !!!!!!!!!

kiya kabooter
29 August 2010, 11:48 PM
Isht - is the one whom you revere and are devoted to - may it be Shiva, Krsna, Rama, Ganpati, Bagla, Durga, Kali.. - this is not a major factor. Usually devotees get high on who is greater or lower etc.. thus engage into a God positioning agenda that is so famous in the Gaudiya camp.


I am reading this more and more and it is causing me to question whether I have started upon the right path. I definitely am not interested in debating or even having an opinion on "Which God is better".. I know that Krishna is my God, and that's good enough for me. (the Sesame Street song C is for Cookie is stuck in my head now!)

I guess it would be useful for me to learn as much as possible while still listening to what my heart tells me on this.. it can be confusing..

Eastern Mind
30 August 2010, 07:53 AM
Vannakkam kiya:

You've made an interesting observation. In my opinion, the brain is the place of confusion, and the heart is the place of clarity.

In my version of SD, it is reconciled by holding two beliefs at once simultaneously. The narrow one is what I personally believe, and practise. It is a South Indian style monistic version of Saiva Siddhanta. That's my lineage, and where I feel at home. 95% of my study is there. The second belief is called Hindu Solidarity. This means that we are all brothers and sisters in dharma, despite cultural, linguistic, ritualistic, and philosophical differences. So there is respect for all sects and groups. There is no arguing this way, at least not from my side. All the various schools within Hinduism are so beautiful.

Another way to think of it is by countries. I am Canadian, and loyal to the core Canadian. Yet I also love Americans, Latvians, the Irish, Slovenians, Indians, New Zealanders, Indians, Swedish, Germans, English, (thinking about HDF members here) and all other countries. But my personal passport will always be Canadian. To think too much or identify too much with being a memeber of another country would be like some poor person holding 30 different passports. It would cause a lot of confusion for the customs guys, and the person himself.

So I don't listen too closely to what other peopl say when they give opposing views to mine. I recognise their view is valid for them, and really don't care if they hold even my view of Hindu Solidarity even.

So you can love Krishna dearly, and still value other's ways, but not adopt them as your own.

Sorry about taking this thread off topic.

Aum

grames
31 August 2010, 08:51 AM
Dear Kiya Kabooter,

I am responding to this thread after reading the amateurish messages from one of the poster here and until this point, i thought this thread doesn't require any real response but, your message here prompted me to post a response properly so that your 'doubt' or 'confusion' can be clarified. This response is essentially for you though i am not an great expert or some enlightened Jiva but a humble servant of Lord who by His mercy gave me few drops of His ocean like knowledge.

Dear YogKriya,

Namaste and my sincere wishes for your time and lengthy messages here. I asked you long back what was your displeasure? and what is that you are trying to prove. You never gave a direct answer but indirectly you worked so hard to prove, it is in fact Lord Shiva who is supreme as per "vedic" wisdom, but with out guts. All that you have complained about what "Gaudiyas" are doing is exactly what you have done with three lengthy messages with out anything missing. I hope you understand this as well as acknowledge it soon.

But, it will be really idiotic and useless self containment if your outpouring is not answered, analysed and reminded of the history and geography of the Veda, culture, Sampradaya and Samya of this great land. Though i want to stop using this word "Spritual Puberty", i do see this new symptom of agitated behavior in the field of spritual wisdom like how the puberty attained people behave when they attain it.

Love is Shivam, Shivam is Love. (Anbay Shivam - Thirumular) - With that great Shiva, let me give this attempt to help one person who sincerely want to be confusion free about his/her faith on Lord Krishna as Supreme.

Dear YogKriya, when i asked "Can you explain what is the Authentic method of Bhakthi with out any politics involved, you have not given any answer. Because, either you are not aware or you do not really know the answer. You have made so many statements though referencing great "bhakta"s like Tulsi Das etc. In your very own statement,

Remembering, the incident with shri Goswami Tulasidas. When he visited the temple of Dwarkadheesh, he refused to bow before the Krishna deity as his mind was steadfast on the image of Lord Rama

What is that you really thought when you wrote that? Is it political? Ista Devata alone? Staunch belief and faith in who is Supreme and also which form is Supreme? Or was he just political that TulsiDas did not know what he was doing?? In fact, Tulsi Das can be also branded as some hardcore, politically motivated person who didn't glorify Lord Shiva or worshiped any other Devata. ( if we follow your line of thoughts, isin't? But, why you consider TulsiDas Goswami is great but not the Gaudiya Sampradaya here? who in the same line of thought, adhere only to worshiping Lord Rama alone?)

Then, you tend to believe a Sampradaya is founded few hundred years ago etc. and also believe that there was some age which was called "Vedic" age and rest is not vedic. This is most uninformed position of the new brand of Yoga Centers in India and also some of the diluted Advaitic traditions view. All the ages/eons are Vedic and we get to know about this basic information from Vedic scriptures only. So, you cannot call or consider Kali Yug as unvedic and previous Yug as vedic era etc. Bhakthi is not new-age spritual pratice and Bhakthi is the root of spritual life in all the eons and we have two extensive epics glorifying the Bhaktas and their Bhakthi as the ultimate Marg for attaining the highest goal of life. Those Bhaktas like Shri Hanuman, Bhakta Prahaladha, Shri Narada etc, were very well aware of the concept of Sampradaya. The first creation learnt the Vedas by means of Bhakthi towards Shri Hayagreeva. Sampradayas in fact, starts from that point and not 300 years ago or 400 years ago. If you happen to believe or if your knowledge is making you believe that, Ramayana is written by Valmiki, then know for the truth that there is something called "Moola Ramayana" which is predating the Valmiki Ramayana and it is the Ramanaya Sung by Lord HayaGreeva. Vedas are aprusheya and it is taught repeatedly to the Jivas in every creation and disappear during MahaPralaya. From the time it is taught, there is a sampradaya and succession of that sampradaya as life progress. Dating Sampradaya is like finding the Rshi Moola and it is not required and it does not require any proof either as there wont be one.

On the other hand, the story is same for Shiva Sampradayas if you are aware of existence of such lineage. If you know any one of these Sampradays ( though you use the word PasuPadha etc. none of your writing has any authentic Shaiva knowledge and it is my so far opinion. So correct me if i am wrong or take it as an advice to seek authentic information on Shaivaism), they do not even consider Lord Krishna's existence. The Supreme Bagavan aspect does not apply to Lord Shiva as He is both Rupa and Arupa ( RupArupa) and Arupa in His original form as per shaivaism. So what are you contending here when we are talking about Gaudiyas view of Lord Shiva and his position? Which Shiva you are talking about? As per Shaivagma, Rudra is not Lord Shiva, Maal is not Lord Krshna and in fact they do not ascribe much of their spiritual knowledge to Vedic Scriptures. Bringing references from Rg Veda etc. to equate Lord Shiva to Lord Rudra and confusing it with Sambu etc. is in fact, the new age confusion which might be happening for last 1200 years. The purity of lineages are distorted because of people who are either misinformed or wanted to be "politically correct". Go and search the position of Rudra in Shaivaism and then go back and reinterpret the Rg Mantras which in fact will not even match the oruMalathan Rudra ( Rudra with one impurity as per Shavaism). Second, if your contention is about all are Same and One, this stand is in fact not accepted by either Shaivaism or Vaishanavaism. Blaming just Vaishnava is in fact political and blaming Shaivaism is also political. But, there are numerous "knowledge" based Vada/Khandana has happened in this holy land and for a genuine spritual seeker, those are the helpful means to know the truth rather than spreading a "Sentimental Rumour" and personal wish as something "vedic". ( Ref to Shaiva-Sarva-Khandhana if you can get hold of a copy of it )

Thirdly, this new stance of One and Sarvam Sakalam is One and None is the new age disease propagated by the spiritual politicians who did not know anything about any spiritual wisdom of this land and because of that ignorance as the only reason, they do not belong to any sampradaya. When you do not have access to any wisdom, what is that you gonna make, talk, practice and propagate? Carrying the shallow knowledge still under the label of Chadur Veda and Dasopanishad is not an intellectual attempt. Dr. Frawley believes that he has mastered four Vedas and it is really ridiculous to know such self confidence of newbies when they do not know that fact that mere reading is not going to give the truth behind vedas. Such boosted ego is the driving force for this 'groupism' and elaborate extensive abuse over "True Faith" and strict code of conduct as well as the authentic practices of sampradayas. With out Sampradayas, imagine what will be the source of your knowledge, faith and intelligence about spiritual matters be it Shaiva or Vaishanava.



The difference between Vishnu and Shiva is there, but at the same time they are supreme too. It is thunderbolt of the confusion. There are two possibilities..in fact i can say three for the above statement to hold valid. First, the word Supreme is a group word and it does not refer to one entity. Second, difference between Lord Shiva and Lord Vishnu is not true so they both are Supreme on their own. Third, Lord Shiva is Lord Vishnu and Lord Vishnu is Lord Shiva. ( A final choice should be, no i am very much confused cos i was drunk last night with enormous amount of Soma and i do not understand what all this about)

Supreme - Superior - means the highest in rank, authority, quality ( Highest is the superlative meaning its the max possible strength) - So such titles can not be given to two "personalities" at once. I hope you agree and even if you disagree, this is universally agreed that, there can be only one who can be designated as Supreme otherwise the meaning of Supreme is lost. So, who is that Supreme? For Shaivaties, it is their Lord Shiva ( remember, it is not Lord Rudra) who is supreme. For Vaishnavaites, it is Lord Vishnu who is Supreme.

Second choice require mostly your explanation as well as details of those "differences". Even when they have differences, but they are still Supreme makes such claim weak. To be Supreme here, both has to have all qualities same, equal with out anything more and anything less. ( Also you have to provide Pramana for such claim - authentic ones and not some translations). The only one who is described as "Aja" (unborn) is Lord Narayana ( NarayaNa can only refer to Lord Vishnu) and Gaudiya's view and understanding is much neat and elegant to establish the already established fact that, it is Lord Vishnu who is Supreme and that is what the ParaVidya is containing and conveying. ( Now, do not bring in Shaiva agamas or Shiva Puranas here or some mixed understanding. A pure Vedic understanding where Rudra is not Shiva and Shiva is not Vishnu and their "differences" are real should be kept in tact to justify this option of "Though with differences they are both Supreme"). Two of the purvacharyas belonging to Vaishnava traditions, went on to great extend to establish the Truth that, Vishnu is Supreme and please read their "Tattva" before contending here. ( Ref: Vishnu Tattva Nirnaya or Shri Madhva - Vedanta-Dipa and Vedanta-sara of Shri Ramanuja).

This choice of Lords Shiva is Lord Vishnu and Lord Vishnu is Lord Shiva - This is very much the Gaudiya's view but the Shiva here is Lord SadaShiva and Shiva and Vishnu are same as in Tattva. If this is the knowledge you are seeking, then resort to the Gaudiya Siddanta where it is very much the truth. But, above the Tattva, there is Rasa and for Gaudiya's, it is the Lord Krishna form who is PoornaRasa Rupa. When you elevate your understanding to this level, then you will no longer get disturbed by so called "differences" in tattva. It is an "OFFENSE" to teach differences for Vishnu and His Svamasa forms. If this sounds intellectual, spiritual then know that this is the stand of Gaudiyas, Madhvas as well as the Sri tradition of Alwars and Shri Ramanuja. Though, there are minor differences in the philosophies of these schools, the siddanta about the ultimate truth is same which is Vishnu Sarvotatmatva.

This option has confusing effect when you try to understand from other philosophical schools or Shaivaism. Shaivaism does not place Shri Vishnu on par with SadaShiva in first place. Lord Shiva is even above Lord SadaShiva. ( Ref: ThiruMandiram of ThiruMoolar). So, there is no such scope for Lord Vishnu being Lord Shiva or Lord Shiva being Lord Vishnu. The traditional Advaitic view is in fact, there is so such "personality" ultimately and when you uphold nirgunatva, there is again no scope for considering Lord Shiva, Lord Vishnu etc. as personalities. Teaching 'Supremacy" utilizing this Darshana is superfluous and not intelligent again. Then comes to the mix of Advaita and Shaivaism like the idea of Appaya Dikshita, where Lord Shiva is upheld as the Supreme with Shaiva foundation but dismissed as non-different from the imagination created jiva with the "Advaitic" background. He is such a great scholar but his idea, works was refuted on all the accounts by the great Madhva Saint, Shri Vijayindra Thirta Swami of Kumbakonam. I am not knowledgeable to bring here the refutations but anyone interested can approach the aforementioned swamiji's mutt in Kumbakonam, Tamilnadu, India.

Final option does not require elaboration. Dance of Drunkard is good to enjoy and laugh but nothing serious to take away with such show. Ignorance is bliss.





The very thread proves that a subservient dependent position of Lord Shiva is
a mere "Gaudiya Vaisnava Perspective" only. Not a Vedic. This is blanket statement with out merit as you will be forced to prove two things.. first what is "Vedic" and secondly what is "Vedic" perspective. After providing these two, you then have to explain a lot more about so many Shrutis, Upanishad's and Sutras as well as puranas to explain in what way Lord Shiva is glorified as independant. ( Do not bring few ShantiParva verses here to justify or some Shiva Puranas to prove such points. A Strict no no to Shaiva Agamas too.)

But happily, i do agree to one portion of the above statement of yours which is, YES it is truly the "GAUDIYA VAISHNAVA" Perspective ONLY. ( Is it Vedic view or not is very high level subject matter and it require lot of knowledge, God's mercy and understanding and digestion capabilities for two insignificant individuals to take part. So, i take my refuge under my Vaishnava Acharayas and i do not mind where you want to take your shelter but sincerely WISH YOU ALL THE BEST.)

For Pooja Rituals comments of yours, my only answer is, Gaudiya's siddanta is about establishing the "personal" relationship with Lord through His most beloved Radha (towards Vishnu by the grace of Shri). This is the core ideology and other devata worship is not entertained for this reason. Calling it unvedic is ignorance and do read the story of Prahaladha. For Vaishnavas, this is the possible method for this age and if you can do some great tapas etc. no one is going to stop you from doing it.

Vishwamitra, Vasista etc. are deva Rshis and they already know who is Supreme and they played their role as per the wish of Shri Hari and read the complete Moola Ramayana to get the knowledge of these Rshish devotion towards Shri Hari.

Sat-Chit-Ananda-Vigraha - Body does not have to be material unless you force yourself to believe in only such idea. If you want a scientific discussion on such things leaving aside who is supreme, i can provide more information.

What is offensive is your understanding of Gaudiya view with out real knowledge of what their view is and also judging it based on your so far idea and understanding. I can only see your love for Lord Shiva more than any real knowledge.


oh !! what is this ? why Vedik rishis calling Rudra as supreme being ? O srila Prabhupada.. why don't you send your god brothers to vedik rishis?

Because, that Rudra is Lord Vishnu - that Vishnu, the Sri Pati is always supreme. That vishnu, who is laying on the Sesha is always Supreme. Oh. Mr YogKriya, why don't you learn the vast wisdom first before entering in to the VidyaSabha of greats? Svetasvatara upanishad is in fact Vaishnava upanishad but you may not have learnt the actual meanings - with grammar correctness from any Vaishnava scholar so why this unfortunate arrogance. Reading translations of some "Ananda"s will take away your eternal "Ananda" permanently and be aware of that.

And a final note... are you aware that to prove Lord Shiva as Supreme, you have to prove Lord Vishnu/Narayana as not Supreme? It is not possible to do this utilizing Veda/Upanishad/Puranas. Vaishnava traditions had great saints like Shri Ramanuja, Shri Kuratazwan etc. who refused to accept Lord Shiva ( of Shaivaism) as Supreme even the ruling Kings were so rude, cruel to them. This trend of forcing Shiva on Vishnu Bhaktas is history and the other way around never happened. The new age concept of Shiva and Vishnu are One etc are later additions and they are non-vedic in true spirit. What i consider cruel politics which is still continuing is making sure, Lord Shiva is supreme. Your posts here just prove that political spirit more than anything spiritual.


Hare Krshna.!
All Glories to Shri Prabhupada

atanu
31 August 2010, 10:57 AM
Dear YogKriya,
And a final note... are you aware that to prove Lord Shiva as Supreme, you have to prove Lord Vishnu/Narayana as not Supreme? It is not possible to do this utilizing Veda/Upanishad/Puranas.
Hare Krshna.!
All Glories to Shri Prabhupada


Namaste Bandhu Grames

I hope you will not mind explaining the following translation of Shri Prabhupada (as cited by Shri Yogkriya in his post), in reference to your above call, highlighted with blue fonts above.

From Bhagavatam
O Lord Girîsha, since You are Brahman which is transcendental to the material modes of goodness, passion and ignorance, the various directors of this material world certainly cannot appreciate it or even know where it is. It is not understandable even to Lord Brahmâ, Lord Vishnu or the King of heaven, Mahendra ( SB 8:7:31)

Why this particular translation when the original sanskrit does not name Vishnu as such? Is it political or is it a spiritual requirement as in Puranas that extol a particular trimurti deity to the exclusion of the other two?

While explaining the above, kindly do not ignore the following, paying special attention to the parts highlighted in blue, keeping them together in mind:

"O lord Shiva, you are self-effulgent and supreme. You create this material world by your personal energy, and you assume the names Brahmā, Viṣṇu and Maheśvara when you act in creation, maintenance and annihilation." ( Srimad Bhagavatam 8:7:23 )

" O Lord Shiva, You are the cause of all causes, the self-effulgent, inconceivable, and you are alone that Secret Para Brahman (tvaḿ brahma paramaḿ guhyaḿ )........

................

I will give my undertanding, which I am not imposing on anyone but I wish that these questions must be kept by anyone in mind who argue about Supremacy of Lord, who is inconceivable, even to Prajapatis, including BrahmA and Vishnu. Lord Shiva is talked of as Self effulgent and thus He is not jyoti of any other Source God. He is also called as inconceivable but also creator of this world, including forms and names of the Trimurti. I believe that the trimurti: BrahmA, Vishnu, and Mahendra are the highest Jivas controlling this material existence (one may argue as to who among them is Supreme, but I find it futile because I understand that the Self, the highest above the highest, is actually inconceivable)

As per me and as supported by Bhagavatam and sruti scriptures, the secret Lord is Shiva, who is actually inconceivable because of being transcendental to the senses but His residence in the innermost recesses of every heart. We have discussed many times that Lord Shiva is called patiM patiinaaM paramaM parastaad. And i have requested that someone should show from the Vedas that paramaM parastaad is ever mentioned for Vishnu and/or Narayana.

I again believe that the name Shiva, the auspicious, itself is enough without any other proof or verbal gymnastics, to understand Him as THE Paramatman (as spoken of Him by the Prajapatis).

I do not require that you or anyone agree to the above belief. But I request you to please keep all these in mind, while explaining the below:

O Lord Girîsha, since You are Brahman which is transcendental to the material modes of goodness, passion and ignorance, the various directors of this material world certainly cannot appreciate it or even know where it is. It is not understandable even to Lord Brahmâ, Lord Vishnu or the King of heaven, Mahendra ( SB 8:7:31).

I hope you will not take offence at this small question.

Om Namah Shivaya

All glories to that inconceivable Heart, which is also the Universe and its controllers.

Yogkriya
31 August 2010, 04:22 PM
I am reading this more and more and it is causing me to question whether I have started upon the right path. I definitely am not interested in debating or even having an opinion on "Which God is better".. I know that Krishna is my God, and that's good enough for me. (the Sesame Street song C is for Cookie is stuck in my head now!)

I guess it would be useful for me to learn as much as possible while still listening to what my heart tells me on this.. it can be confusing..

If KRISHNA is your God and that's good enough for you, then there is no other question. Follow him with ALL YOUR HEART. Its the right path for you!! :) Have no doubts!

Yogkriya
31 August 2010, 04:25 PM
I SALUTE YOU !!!!!!!!! Great work cos it is TRUE !!!!!!!!!
God Bless you dear Giridhar!
All glories to the great Lord Shiva - one without a beginning or an end!

Jogesh
31 August 2010, 08:23 PM
grames,

you sure wander all over the place not making direct points...

Sorry if this seems like an attack, but I also find you to be extremely condescending on pretty much any thread I have read by you...
why you gaudiyas think your the end all be all is beyond me, your Chaitanya was an Advaitin mixed with devotion to Krishna..

namaskar

AhamAtma
31 August 2010, 09:30 PM
Because, that Rudra is Lord Vishnu - that Vishnu, the Sri Pati is always supreme. That vishnu, who is laying on the Sesha is always Supreme. Oh. Mr YogKriya, why don't you learn the vast wisdom first before entering in to the VidyaSabha of greats? [/FONT][/COLOR]Svetasvatara upanishad is in fact Vaishnava upanishad but you may not have learnt the actual meanings - with grammar correctness from any Vaishnava scholar so why this unfortunate arrogance. Reading translations of some "Ananda"s will take away your eternal "Ananda" permanently and be aware of that. [FONT=Arial]


Dear Mr.Grames,

What's your intention behind your words? Do you mean to say that Rishi Svetasvatara originally worshiped Vishnu but never Shiva ? Do you mean to say that Rudra of Svetasvatara Upanishad is not really Lord Shiva ? If that was your intention then i really pity your ignorance. I personally never see any difference between Lord Shiva and Lord Vishnu. They are just two different names of Brahman/Atman. The Shvetasvatara Upanishad is not your so-called Vaishnava Upanishad. Why do you undermine Lord Shiva & Rishi Svetasvatara with your ignorance ? If you want to visualize, for the sake of Upasana, Rudra of Svetasvatara upanishad in form of Vishnu then it's your choice. But with your Vaishnavite grammar jugglery never try to malign Lord Shiva and hurt the heart of Rishi Svetasvatara, the great Rudra Bhakta.


Just like you Some(not all) vaishnavas are over enthusiastic and try to claim that Rishi Svetasvatara was not a worshipper of Lord Shiva. They even say that Rishi Svetasvatara used the word 'Rudra' as an epithet of Lord Vishnu but not to refer 'Rudra' ( a demi-god in their view) of vedas. But such useless ramblings only bring disgrace to the vaishnava sect. A careful analysis of both Śvetāśvatara Upanishad and vedas prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the Rudra of Śvetāśvatara Upanishad and the Rudra of Vedas are one and the same. it is really foolish to think that Rishi Svetasvatara used the word 'Rudra' to refer someone else other than vedik Rudra.


Rudra of Śvetāśvatara Upanishad is none other than Rudra of vedas.

Actually, most of the people do not know the fact that several mantras used in Śvetāśvatara Upanishad were actually adapted from Veda samhitas. That's why the Śvetāśvatara Upanishad is popular as 'Mantra Upanishad' . The hymns in praise of Rudra in Śvetāśvatara Upanishad were actually taken from Samhita portions of Rigveda, Yajurveda, and Atharvana Veda.


1)

yo devo agnau yo’psu
yo viśvaṃ bhuvanam āviveśa
ya oṣadhīṣu yo vanaspatiṣu
tasmai devāya namo namaḥ ( Śvetāśvatara Upanishad II-17 )


The Self—luminous Lord, who is fire, who is in water, who has entered into the whole world, who is in plants, who is in trees— to that Lord let there be adoration! Yea, let there be adoration!


The above mantra was actually adapted from Yajurveda Taittiriya Samhita. The verse is addressed to Rudra. The verse describes the omnipresence of Lord Rudra. It says that Rudra is the indweller of elements of nature and beings as well. So it is clear that the Rudra of Śvetāśvatara Upanishad is none otherthan lord Rudra of Vedas.

Adapted from:

Yo rudro agnau yo apsu ya oshhadhishhu
Yo rudro vishva bhuvanaaavivesha tasmai rudraya namo astu (YV 5:5:9-i )

MEANING: The Rudra in the fire, in the waters, in the plants, the Rudra that hath entered all beings, to that Rudra be homage.



2)

eko hi rudro na dvitīyāya tasthur
ya imāṃl lokān īśata īśanībhiḥ
pratyaṅ janāṃs tiṣṭhati sańcukocānta-kāle
saṃsṛjya viśvā bhuvanāni gopāḥ ( SV Up III-2)

Meaning : Rudra is truly one; for the knowers of Brahman do not admit the existence of a second, He alone rules all the worlds by His powers. He dwells as the inner Self of every living being. After having created all the worlds, He, their Protector, takes them back into Himself at the end of time.


The above verse clearly says that Rudra is truly one. Rishi Svetasvatara reasserts "Ekam eva advitiyam Brahma". This verse which proclaims the absoluteness of Lord Rudra was also adapted from Taittiriya samhita. The verse clearly refutes the vaishnavite claims that Rudra is a demi-god and subordinate to Vishnu. Lord Rudra is not a demi god but lord Rudra is Absolute brahman who is beyond the comprehension of human minds. Vedas testify the absoluteness of Lord Rudra. This verse also makes it clear that Rudra of Śvetāśvatara Upanishad is none otherthan lord Rudra of Vedas.

Adapted from:

Eka eva rudra na dvitīyāya tasthur ( Yajurveda 1:8:6 d)

ie., Rudra is truly one for the knowers of Brahman do not admit the existence of a second.



3)

viśvataś cakṣur uta viśvato-mukho
viśvato-bāhur uta viśvatas-pāt
saṃ6 bāhubhyāṃ dhamati sampatatrair
dyāv-ābhūmī janayan deva ekaḥ ( Sv Up III-3)

His eyes are everywhere, His faces everywhere, His arms everywhere, everywhere His feet. He it is who endows men with arms, birds with feet and wings and men likewise with feet. Having produced heaven and earth, this God (deva ekaḥ) remains as their non—dual manifester.



yā te rudra śivā tanūr aghorā’pāpa-kāśinī
tayā nas tanuvā śantamayā giriśantābhicākaśīh ( Sv Up III-5)

Lord Rudra, you who dwell on Mount Kailas and who confer happiness, by that
form of yours which is not terrible, which will not injure us, and which is highly
auspicious, behold and illuminate us.


The above verse of Svetasvatara upanishad asks Rudra to shower his blessings in auspicious form. This verse is like a jolt upon those vaishnavas who claim that Rudra of svetasvatara upanishad is different from Rudra of vedas whom the advaitins and Shaivates worship. This verse is taken 'AS-IT-IS' from the popular Sri Rudram portion of Yajurveda. The Vaishnavites often say that Rudra,who is worshiped by Advaitins and shaivates by chanting Rudram, is a demi-god and subordinate to Vishnu. So they say that the Rudra of Śvetāśvatara upanishad is Vishnu but not Rudra of Shaivates. Such senseless claims of vaisnavas are rebutted by this verse. If Śvetāśvatara maharshi's Rudra is different from Shaivates' Rudra then why did he take this mantra "AS-IT-IS" from Sri Rudram ? if Śvetāśvatara maharshi want to distinguish between his Rudra and Shaivates' Rudra then he wouldn't have quoted from Sri Rudram at all.


Adapted from:

yā te rudra śivā tanūr aghorā’pāpa-kāśinī
tayā nas tanuvā śantamayā giriśantābhicākaśīh ( YV Taittiriya Samhita IV-5-1-c)



4)

yābhiṣuṃ giriśanta haste bibharṣy astave
śivāṃ giritra tāṃ kuru mā hiṃsīḥ puruṣaṃ jagat ( SV Up III-6)


My Lord who dwells on Mount Kailas and confers gladness to all! You, who fulfills your vow of protecting all who serve you and take refuge in you; that arrow of yours which you hold ready to let fly, withhold it and make it tranquil and auspicious.


The above verse is once again a jolt upon such vaishnavas. Because this verse is also taken 'AS-IT-IS' from Sri Rudram portion of yajurveda. If Śvetāśvatara maharshi's Rudra is different from Shaivates' Rudra then why did he take this mantra "AS-IT-IS" from Sri Rudram ? if Śvetāśvatara maharshi want to distinguish between his Rudra and Shaivates' Rudra then he wouldn't have quoted from Sri Rudram at all. Of course, there are a category of vaishnavas who conveniently changes their color just like chameleon. They argue that the Sri Rudram portion of Vedas are refering to Narayana but not Rudra of Shaivates. This is really a funny claim. it is something similar like 'Vishnu of vaishnavas is not same as Vishnu of Vishnu puran or pancharatra agama'. The shaivates are not bothered about any other Rudra whom the Vaishnavites are referring to. For Shaivates, God is 'Rudra' who is eulogized in Sri Rudram, Who is eulogized in Rigveda samhita with name 'Rudra', Who is eulogized in Atharvana veda with names 'Rudra' 'Sarva' Bhava' 'vratya' skambha...etc, Who is eulogized in Brahmanas as 'Mahadeva' , Who is eulogized in Aranyakas, who is eulogized in kena upanishad as Lord of Uma hymavati (umapati). who is eulogized as 'Maheswara', 'Parameswara', 'iswara' , 'Hara', 'Shiva' 'Ishana' in Svetasvatara upanishad. Shaivates are unaware of any other 'Rudra' whom these vaishnavas are referring.

Adapted from :

yābhiṣuṃ giriśanta haste bibharṣy astave
śivāṃ giritra tāṃ kuru mā hiṃsīḥ puruṣaṃ jagat ( YV Taittiriya samhita IV-5-1 d)


5)

tvaṃ strī pumān asi
tvaṃ kumāra uta vā kumārī
tvaṃ jīrṇo daṇḍena vańcasi
tvaṃ jāto bhavasi viśvato-mukhaḥ ( SV Up IV-3)

Meaning: Thou art a woman, and a man; thou art a damsel and a boy.
Grown old thou totterest with a staff, new-born thou lookest every way.


The above verse describes Lord Rudra as everyone and everything. But this verse is adapted from the Skambha Suktam of Atharvana Veda samhita. 'Skambha' means 'pillar'. Lord Rudra appeared as pillar without begining or ending. Both Hari and Brahma failed to know the origin and end of skambha. 'Linga' is a symbol of Skambha.

Adapted From:

tvįṃ strī́ tvįṃ pśmān asi tvįṃ kumārį utį vā kumārī́||
tvįṃ jīrṇó daṇḍéna vańcasi tvįṃ jātó bhavasi viśvįtomukhaḥ (Atharva Veda Śamhita 10,8.27)



6)

yo devānām adhipo
yasmin lokā adhiśritāḥ
ya īśe asya dvipadaś catuṣpadaḥ
kasmai devāya haviṣā vidhema ( SV Up IV-13 )

Meaning:
He who is the sovereign of the gods, in whom the worlds find their support, who rules over all two—footed and four—footed beings—let us serve that God, radiant and blissful, with an oblation.



Here Śvetāśvatara maharshi calls Rudra is called as Lord of both two-footed and four-footed. (ya īśe asya dvipadaś catuṣpadaḥ). This epithet is not a new one. In Veda samhitas, Rudra is always adressed as the lord of both two-footed and four-footed. Rudra is addressed as Lord of two-footed and four-footed for more than 100 times. So from this, it is clear that Rudra of Svetasvatara and Rudra of Vedas are both one and the same.

Adapted from:

bhįvāśarvau manvé vāṃ tįsya vittaṃ yįyor vām idįṃ pradķśi yįd virócate
yā́v asyéśāthe dvipįdo yįu cįtuṣpadas tįu no muńcatam įṃhasaḥ ( Athava veda IV-28-1)

O Bhava and Sarva, I am devoted to you. Take note of that, you under whose control, is all this which shines (the visible universe)! You rule all these two-footed and four-footed creatures, you, Deliver us from grief and trouble.


yįyor vadhā́n nā́papįdyate kįś canā́ntįr devéṣūtį mā́nuṣeṣu
yā́v asyéśathe dvipįdo yįu cįtuṣpadas tįu no muńcatam įṃhasaḥ ( Athava veda IV-28-5)

You from whose blows no one either among gods or men escapes; you who rule all these two-footed and four-footed creatures, deliver us from grief and trouble.



7)

sūkṣmātisūkṣmaṃ kalilasya madhye
viśvasya sraṣṭāram aneka-rūpam
viśvasyaikaṃ pariveṣṭitāraṃ
jńātvā śivaṃ śāntim atyantam eti ( SV Up IV-14 )

Finer beyond fineness. He hath hidden him in the midmost of this hustling chaos. He hath created this universe by taking many figures and as the One He encompasseth it around and girdeth it; having known Shiva, the Blessed One, man goeth to unutterable peace


The above verse explicitly identifies Lord Rudra with Shiva. The words [COLOR="Blue"]" jńātvā śivaṃ " clearly says that the absolute is to be known or realised as SHIVA.,then only one can have supreme peace. If Lord Rudra is not 'Shiva' of Shaivates then why is Śvetāśvatara Maharshi saying that the absolute is to be known as 'Shiva'. (jńātvā śivaṃ) ?



ghṛtāt paraṃ maṇḍam ivātisūkṣmaṃ
jńātvā śivaṃ sarva-bhūteṣu gūḍham
viśvasyaikaṃ pariveṣṭitāraṃ
jńātvā devaṃ mucyate sarva-pāśaiḥ ( SV Up IV-16)

As the rare and fine cream in clarified butter, and it is richer than the butter, so Shiva the Blessed One hath hidden Him in every one of all His creatures; but as the One He encompasseth this whole world and girdeth it around. Know God and thou breakest every bondage.


Here again Rishi Śvetāśvatara telling us to realise that, it is Shiva who resides in the hearts of all beings. (jńātvā śivaṃ sarva-bhūteṣu gūḍham ).



8)

yadā’tamas tan na divā na rātrir
na san na cāsac chiva eva kevalaḥ
tad akṣaraṃ tat savitur vareṇyaṃ
prajńā ca tasmāt prasṛtā purāṇī (SV Up IV-18)

When there is no darkness of ignorance, there is no day or night, neither being nor non—being; SHIVA alone exists. That immutable Reality is the meaning of "That"; It is adored by the Sun. From It has proceeded the ancient wisdom.


Oh... here once again !! Rishi Śvetāśvatara proclaimed "Shiva eva kevalaḥ" ie., Shiva alone exists. if Svetasvatara Rishi's Lord Rudra is different from the Shiva of Shaivates why is he using the word 'Shiva' again and again ?


9)

ajāta ity evaṃ kaścid bhīruḥ prapadyate
rudra yat te dakṣiṇaṃ mukhaṃ tena māṃ pāhi nityam ( SV Up IV-21)

It is because Thou, O Lord, art birthless, that some rare souls, frightened by birth and death, take refuge in Thee. O Rudra, may Thy benign face protect me for ever!


Here Maharshi Śvetāśvatara says that only rare souls take refuge(prapadyate) of Rudra. He is asking Rudra's bengin face (dakṣiṇaṃ mukhaṃ) to protect forever. Here Rishi takes refugee of Shiva's bengin form ie., Dakshina murthy. Rudra has both Ghora and Aghora forms.

10)

mā nas toke tanaye mā na āyuṣi
mā no goṣu mā na aśveṣu rīriṣaḥ
vīrān mā no rudra bhāmito
vadhīr haviṣmantaḥ sadāmit tvā havāmahe ( SV Up IV-22)


O Rudra, do not, in Thy wrath, destroy our children and grand—children. Do not destroy our lives; do not destroy our cows or horses; do not destroy our strong servants. For we invoke Thee always, with oblations, for our protection.


The above verse is also taken 'AS IT IS' from Sri Rudram portion of Yajurveda. Here Rudra is asked to show mercy upon the progency. It is typical to Rudra in vedas. If Lord Rudra of Svetasvatara maharshi is different from the Rudra of vedas, why has he taken Sri Rudram verse 'AS IT IS' ? So it is very clear that Rudra of Shaivates and Rudra of Svetasvatara Upanishad are one and the same.

Adapted from:

Manastoke tanaye ma na ayushhi ma no goshhu ma no ashveshhu ririshhah
Viranma no rudra bhamitoavadhi rhavishhmanto namasa vidhema te ( Yajur veda TS IV-5-10-f)

Lord Rudra! Getting angry at our transgressions hurts not only our children, oursons in particular, but also our cattle and horses, and our warriors.
Making offerings into the sacred fire, we shall serve and calm you by our
Namaskars (salutations).


Verses which explicitly identifies Lord Rudra with Shaivate names.

kṣaraṃ pradhānam amṛtākṣaraṃ haraḥ ( SV Up I-10)
ie., prakriti is perishable but Hara is imperishable.


jńātvā devaṃ sarva-pāśāpahāniḥ ( SV Up I-11)

jńātvā devaṃ mucyate sarva-pāśaiḥ ( SV Up II- 15 )
By knowing the deity all pashas ie., Bondages will be gone.

ya eko jālavān īśata īśanībhiḥ sarvāṃl lokān īśata īśanībhiḥ ( SV Up III-1)

eko hi rudro na dvitīyāya tasthur ya imāṃl lokān īśata īśanībhiḥ (SV Up III-2)

yo devānāṃ prabhavaś codbhavaś ca
viśvādhipo rudro maharṣiḥ
hiraṇyagarbhaṃ janayāmāsa pūrvaṃ
sa no buddhyā śubhayā saṃyunaktu (SV Up III-4)

yā te rudra śivā tanūr aghorā’pāpa-kāśinī
tayā nas tanuvā śantamayā giriśantābhicākaśīhi (SV Up III-5)

yābhiṣuṃ giriśanta haste bibharṣy astave
śivāṃ giritra tāṃ kuru mā hiṃsīḥ puruṣaṃ jagat (SV Up III-6)

sunirmalām imāṃ prāptim īśāno jyotir avyayaḥ ( SV Up III-12)

sarvasya prabhum īśānaṃ sarvasya śaraṇaṃ bṛhat( SV Up III-17)

māyāṃ tu prakṛtiṃ vidyān māyinaṃ ca maheśvaram ( SV Up IV-10)

tam īśānaṃ varadaṃ devam īḍyaṃ (SV Up IV-11)

ya īśe asya dvipadaś catuṣpadaḥ kasmai devāya haviṣā vidhema ( SV Up IV-13)

jńātvā śivaṃ sarva-bhūteṣu gūḍham ( SV Up IV-16)

na san na cāsac chiva eva kevalaḥ ( SV Up IV-18)

ajāta ity evaṃ kaścid bhīruḥ prapadyate
rudra yat te dakṣiṇaṃ mukhaṃ tena māṃ pāhi nityam ( SV Up IV - 21)

mā nas toke tanaye mā na āyuṣi
mā no goṣu mā na aśveṣu rīriṣaḥ
vīrān mā no rudra bhāmito
vadhīr haviṣmantaḥ sadāmit tvā havāmahe ( SV Up IV-22)

bhāva-grāhyam anīḍākhyaṃ bhāvābhāva-karaṃ śivam ( SV Up V-14)

tam īśvarāṇāṃ paramaṃ maheśvaraṃ ( SV Up VI-7)

ya īśe’sya jagato nityam eva nānyo hetur vidyata īśanāya ( SV Up VI-17)


All the above mentioned verses clearly indicate that Rudra of Svetasvatara Upanishad and Rudra of vedas are one and the same. Rishi Svetasvatara devoted himself heart and soul to Lord Rudra. He was a devotee of Lord Shiva. He worshiped 'Hara'. He surrendered to 'Maheswara'. He took refuge of Ishana alone. By surrendering to Pashupati he broke all Paashaas(Bondage) and finally attained salvation by the grace of Lord Rudra. It is really unfair on the part of Vaishnavas to deny the True heart of Svetasvatara Maharshi.

Svetasvatara worshiped Lord Shiva who is beyond form and name. He did Rudropasana. He meditated on the bengin aspect of Lord Rudra. He realised that all gods including Vishnu were created by Lord Rudra alone. Rudra alone bestowed powers upon the gods. He called Rudra with various names like Shiva,Maheswara,Hara,ishana,pashupati,Parameswara..etc. In the Upanishad , he adapted Sri Rudram mantras. All these things clearly prove beyond any reasonable doubt that Rudra of Svetasvatara upanishad and Rudra of Vedas are one and the same.

trayī sāṃkhyaṃ yogaḥ paśupatimataṃ vaiṣṇavam iti
prabhinne prasthāne param idam adaḥ pathyam iti ca
rucīnāṃ vaicitryād ṛjukuṭilanānāpathajuṣāṃ
nṛṇām eko gamyas tvam asi payasām arṇava iva

"There are different paths of realization as enjoined by the three Vedas, Sānkhyā, Yoga, Pāśupata doctrine and Vaishnava śāstras . Persons following different paths straight or crooked according as they consider that this path is best or that one is proper due to the difference in temperaments, reach Thee alone, O Shiva, just as rivers enter the ocean."


Regards,
AhamAtma


"Seeing the Atman in all beings, and all beings in the Atman, one attains the highest Brahman – not by any other means" (kaivalya upanishad 10 )

Rasa1976
31 August 2010, 10:57 PM
your Chaitanya was an Advaitin mixed with devotion to Krishna..

namaskar

This is an interesting claim, in fact I have heard it before. I have even heard it somewhere, "Lord Chaitanya was a Mayavadi".

Do you have a source for this? Even if for whatever reason you want to discount the entire Chaitanya-Charitamrita (which of course is full of stories about Advaitins being "converted"), it still wouldn't tally with Chaitanya supposedly unearthing the Brahma-Samhita. The Brahma-Samhita likely being one of the most difficult texts to facilitate an Advaitic slant.

Thanks.

grames
01 September 2010, 06:58 AM
Dear Atanu and Jogesh,

First of all, my apologies if i gave an impression that i am " extremely condescending" with my belief and faith as 'superior' over others. May be it is my flaw and i will surely try to be more polite, focus only on the subject when it is required and pass the little information, understanding that i am given as in sharing. Also, it is necessarily not to bow down like a weak when 'wrong' information is piled on to prove a negative theology and when countering that, the feel you can get is only i am condescending etc. and i do not think anyone can avoid it. When you complain, you are also a subject of complaint too. :)

There is no offense is raising questions dear Atanu cos i believe it will only help us to know more, understand better and allow us to see the Truth more, provided we are honest, not biased and do not put our ego above the Truths. But, i would like to know what is your "intention" here? To prove Lord Shiva as the Supreme and Lord Vishnu is not in fact Supreme? If know the intention, may be i can engage in a better discussion.

For the subject matter, this particular verse which you have quoted need to be understood with the context ( in fact, vedantic discussion require you to understand the context first before attempting the explanation). This particular chapter is about Lord Shiva drinking the poison that came out as part of churning the milk ocean. Let me give you some pointers and i would like to know what kind of understanding these pointers gives to you and come back and prove your "intention" of what you are trying to achieve or establish by invoking the SB verse 8.7.31?


Let me first jump to chapter 21 of Can:11

māḿ vidhatte 'bhidhatte māḿ vikalpyāpohyate tvaham
etāvān sarva-vedārthaḥ śabda āsthāya māḿ bhidām
māyā-mātram anūdyānte pratiṣidhya prasīdati - 43

Do give a translation and good pointers to understand the above verse. Contextually as well as by the strength of the speaker, the above verse gives the direct knowledge of the Supreme being and His distinction with out doubt for the entire Bagavata. Also the previous verse,

kim´ vidhatte kim acaste
kim anudya vikalpayet
ity asya hrdayam´ loke
nanyo mad veda kascana - 42

and give the importance to the last "na Anya Mad Veda Kascana when you provide the meaning.

Let us look beyond SB for strengthening the above verses purports.

mukhyam cha sarvavEdAnAM tAtparyaM shripatEH paraM |
uthkarshE tu tadanyatra tAtparyaM syAt avAntaram - MahaVaraha Up.

The great and primary purport of all the Vedas is the greatness of Shripathi. Their reference to other matters is only secondary. Who says the above? The Lord in His varaha ( boar) form to His disciple Sage Ribhu. Do you have any better translation for this?

yasminn asankhyeya-visesa-nama-
rupakrtau kavibhih kalpiteyam
sankhya yaya tattva-drsapaniyate
tasmai namah sankhya-nidarsanaya te iti SB 5.18.33

This above sloka is even more descriptive about the forms of Lord and who is in fact called as the Baghvan. Will it help to prove, Lord Vishnu is not supreme?


Om Namo BhagavathE manthralingAya
yaj~na krathavE mahAdhvarAvayyavAya
mahA purushAya nama:karma sukhlAya
thriyugAya namasthE SB 5.18.35

yasyadya asid gun?a-vigraho mahan
vijñana-dhis?n?yo bhagavan ajah? kila
yat-sambhavo 'ham´ tri-vr?ta sva-tejasa
vaikarikam´ tamasam aindriyam´ sr?je
ete vayam´ yasya vase mahatmanah?
sthitah? sakunta iva sutra-yantritah?
mahan aham´ vaikr?ta-tamasendriyah?
sr?jama sarve yad-anugrahad idam SB 5.17.22&23


How can we translate the above verse??


How about the Varaha Puranas Sarama SLokas?

sthithE manasi susvasthE sarIrE sathi yO nara:
dhAthusAmyE sthithE smarthA visvarUpam cha maamajam
tathastham mriyamANam thu kAshtA paashaNa sannibham
aham smarAmi madh bhaktham nayAmi paramAm gathim


Can you explain all the above slokas with proper translations? I will be delighted to know your view but if you skip even one Sloka, then it is obvious that you cannot prove Lord Shiva as Supreme and do accept that as verdict.


There are so many verses in the Shrutis, Sutra and Puranas where you cannot give two different meanings or prove that Lord Shiva as supreme by proving Lord Vishnu as not one which should be met as a must condition for justifying such contention. Dear Atanu, it is not the first time you are throwing this pin thinking what is presented here as mere inflated balloon.
So, my advice for you is to go ahead and continue reading the entire 8th Canto and get to know that, It is by the Mercy of Lord Vishnu, Lord Shiva, His svamsa manifestation gets all the glorification though, the same Lord Shiva remembers who He has to please by saying...


pum´sah? krpayato bhadre
sarvatma priyate hariH
prite harau bhagavati
priye 'ham´ sacaracaraH
tasmad idam´ garam´ bhuñje
prajanam´ svastir astu me -- SB 8.7.40

Do you want to translate this by ignoring hariH with some other meaning?? Who is that Hari? Why Lord Shiva has to consider pleasing Shri Hari?

(Thanks proudVedic - for the note)

In fact, you in some rush or some blind faith still refusing to take the million $ point which is already conveyed three times by me, once strongly by my dearest Krshna Das that, as in Tattva, Lord SadaShiva is Lord Vishnu. But, you will not grasp such subtle tattva because your love for Lord Shiva is that strong. :)

Hare Krshna.

grames
01 September 2010, 07:02 AM
Dear Yogesh,

Gaudiyas think all end is at the feet of Lord Krshna. It may not be very interesting for someone who just want to wander all over the place as in Tourists. For such people, it is not very pleasing or not easy to understand why in the world these crazy creatures are so sentimental, emotional and so personal about worshiping just one deity. For Gaudiyas, Krshna is ultimate, Krshna provides all variety, Krshna runs the show forever with out any tinge of tiredness or boredom. Its all Krshna leela, but only for those who turn their will, wish towards Him.

Wish you very happy and graceful Krshna Janmastami!
Hare Krshna!

atanu
01 September 2010, 08:41 AM
Dear Atanu and Jogesh,
Dear Atanu, it is not the first time you are throwing this pin thinking what is presented here as mere inflated balloon.


????????
O Lord Girîsha, since You are Brahman which is transcendental to the material modes of goodness, passion and ignorance, the various directors of this material world certainly cannot appreciate it or even know where it is. It is not understandable even to Lord Brahmâ, Lord Vishnu or the King of heaven, Mahendra ( SB 8:7:31)

Frankly speaking, in your post I cannot see any explanation of the above and questions that i requested you to consider. So, I am refering the earlier post again for your perusal, so that you may see the questions and the implications again..

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=49798&postcount=61

My interest is not the Supremacy angle at all (which is futile since neither you nor me have seen anything of the Supreme). My interest is to stimulate enquiry regarding the adjectives and phrases used for Shivam - such as inconceivable, Self Effulgent, one whom BrahmA, Vishnu, and Mahendra fail to understand, creator of universe, secret and patiM patiinaaM paramaM parastaad (Controller of Controllers and Supreme beyond the Supreme).

If you wish, we may request satay to shift this part of the discussion on to a new thread so as not to pollute the present thread, which is on Gaudiya Understanding.

Om Namah Shivaya

grames
01 September 2010, 08:56 AM
Yes. I wish this thread was not polluted at all. In fact, this thread was created as on offshot of another thread fearing pollution :)

satay
01 September 2010, 09:48 AM
Admin Note

Namaskar,

Please refrain from attacking the Gaudiya prespective and making personal attacks on other members.

This forum is dedicated specifically for ISKCON and their views.

If you follow a different sect or guru you don't have to agree with ISKCON view and need not shove your own interpretations down their throarts.

Thank you all for your cooperation.

Yogkriya
01 September 2010, 10:37 AM
If you wish, we may request satay to shift this part of the discussion on to a new thread so as not to pollute the present thread, which is on Gaudiya Understanding.
Om Namah Shivaya


Admin Note

Namaskar,
Please refrain from attacking the Gaudiya prespective and making personal attacks on other members.
This forum is dedicated specifically for ISKCON and their views.
If you follow a different sect or guru you don't have to agree with ISKCON view and need not shove your own interpretations down their throarts.
Thank you all for your cooperation.

Namaskar!
Satay, Atanu,
That will be fine.
The Gaudiyas have a view on Lord Shiva. We understand they don't worship Shiva AS IT IS. Nor is this sub-sect focused on Lord Shiva or studies Lord Shiva. Having a view is fine. But since they publicize and preach this view as the only authentic, then its natural for other schools of thought that are more closely associated with Lord Shiva to react.

I hope you don't give a deaf ear to an American company printing pictures of Ganesha or Krishna on socks and toilet seats!!
Similarly, we cannot give a deaf ear to distortions that are preached as a viewpoint regarding Lord Shiva revered by millions since time immemorial. And yes that Includes such personalities as Ram, Krishn, Brahmrishi Vashishtha, Vishvamitra and so on.

Dear Satay, nobody is attacking Gaudiyas here.

It will be good to shift this very thread on to another location within this forum and churn the curd further!

I'd like to wish the very best in spiritual and material life to all on Shri KRISHN JANAMASHTAMI !

All glories to Lord Krishna the greatest Shaiva!

Jai Mahakaal!

Yogkriya

Krsna Das
01 September 2010, 01:49 PM
HARE KRSNA !

THIS THREAD WAS MEANT FOR DISCUSSION EXCLUSIVELY BETWEEN ME AND GRAMES, BASED ON GAUDIYA PERSPECTIVE.

IF ANYBODY DOES NOT SUBSCRIBE TO THIS, DON'T READ IT.

DON'T VISIT THIS SECTION IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT.

BY THE WAY ME AND GRAMES ARE DONE WITH OUR DISCUSSION ON THIS TOPIC.




eko hi rudro na dvitīyāya tasthur

ya imāṃl lokān īśata īśanībhiḥ
pratyaṅ janāṃs tiṣṭhati sañcukocānta-kāle
saṃsṛjya viśvā bhuvanāni gopāḥ ( SV Up III-2)
Meaning : Rudra is truly one; for the knowers of Brahman do not admit the existence of a second, He alone rules all the worlds by His powers. He dwells as the inner Self of every living being. After having created all the worlds, He, their Protector, takes them back into Himself at the end of time.



AS FAR AS THE VERSES WHICH PROPOSE LORD SIVA TO BE SUPREME, WE ACCEPT THEM AS IT IS, FOR WE UNDERSTAND THEM TO BE SAID FOR LORD SADA-SIVA, WHO IS NONE OTHER THAN VISNU-TATTVA, AND VISNU-TATTVA IS SUPREME. THEREFORE, THE SUPREMACY OF VISNU-TATTVA, AND NOT SIVA TATTVA IS ESTABLISHED IN THOSE VERSES.
THIS IS FIRST REASON.

THIS CAN BE UNDERSTOOD BY DEVOTEES WHO ARE UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF LORD SIVA, THE GREATEST OF VAISHNAVAS. THERFORE HE SAYS TO DEVI PARVATI IN PADMA-PURANA:



Parvati Said, "O Lord Shiva, You once told me that one should avoid speaking with Pasandi atheistic demon,and that doing so is worse then talking to candalas outcastes. Please tell me of what are the symptoms of such persons and what signs do they wear on their bodies?"

Shiva replied,"Those Persons who,deluded by ignorace,describw any other deity being superior to Vishnu,The Lord of the world, are said to be Pasandis. Those who,although they do not belong to the Vanaprastha asrama, use skulls, decorate their bodies with ashes and bones, have non-Vedic marks, matted hair, and wear garments of tree bark, are said to be pasandis. Those brahmanas who are devoid of the marks and symbols dear to Vishnu, such as conches, discs,and vertical-lined tilaka worn on the forehead, are said to be pasandis. That brahman who does not follow the practices given in the sastra should be known as a pasandi and should be condemned by all people. Those who have no devotion for the Lord Visnu are said to be pasandi. One who behaves as he likes and offers oblations in to the fire for the worship of deities other than Lord Vishnu should be known as a pasandi, for only Lord Vishnu is the enjoyer of fruit of all sacrifices and is the deity of brahmanas. He who considers Lord Vishnu as equal to other deities such as Brahma and myself, Rudra,should always be called a pasandi. That brahmana, who with his speech, body,and deeds dose not recognize Vishnu as Supreme,is a pasandi. What is the use of saying much in this regard? Those brahmanas who are not devotees of Vishnu should never be asked any questions, should never be talked to,and should never be seen,"

ONLY THE DEVOTEES OF SIVA (READ TRUE-DEVOTEES) CAN UNDERSTAND THE MEANING OF STATEMENT UNDELINED ABOVE.

LORD SIVA CLEARLY SAYS THAT ONE WHO CONSIDERS LORD VISNU TO BE AT SAME POSITION AS "RUDRA" (NOT "SADA-SIVA") IS CALLED A PASHANDI (HYPOCRITE).

SECOND REASON - FOR THOSE WHO ARE NOT THE TRUE DEVOTEES OF SIVA, FOR THEM THESE VERSES ARE SPOKEN TO FURTHER DELUDE THEM (DEMONS) , AS LORD VISNU SPEAKS TO LORD SIVA:


"....O powerful Rudra,in every age in My different incarnations I too shall worship you to delude the demons. Following these doctrines,they will undoubtedly fall down..."

Mahadeva then said to goddess Parvati, "O auspicious one, as instructed by Lord Vishnu, I distributed the tamasic puranas and the pasandi Shiva doctrines. O sinless one, by entering Gautama and other brahmanas with my potency I proclaimed texts outside the Vedic fold. Adopting the system I gave, all of the wicked demons became averse to Lord Vishnu, and were enveloped in ignorance."


: Shri Padma Purana, Uttara Khanda Chapters 235-236




Dandavat Pranamas to all the Vaisnavas, and happy Krsna-Janmastami.

atanu
01 September 2010, 02:12 PM
AS FAR AS THE VERSES WHICH PROPOSE LORD SIVA TO BE SUPREME, WE ACCEPT THEM AS IT IS, FOR WE UNDERSTAND THEM TO BE SAID FOR LORD SADA-SIVA, WHO IS NONE OTHER THAN VISNU-TATTVA, AND VISNU-TATTVA IS SUPREME. THEREFORE, THE SUPREMACY OF VISNU-TATTVA, AND NOT SIVA TATTVA IS ESTABLISHED IN THOSE VERSES.
THIS IS FIRST REASON.

;)


Om Namah Shivaya

Rasa1976
01 September 2010, 02:30 PM
Parvati Said, "O Lord Shiva, You once told me that one should avoid speaking with Pasandi atheistic demon,and that doing so is worse then talking to candalas outcastes. Please tell me of what are the symptoms of such persons and what signs do they wear on their bodies?"

Shiva replied,"Those Persons who,deluded by ignorace,describw any other deity being superior to Vishnu,The Lord of the world, are said to be Pasandis. Those who,although they do not belong to the Vanaprastha asrama, use skulls, decorate their bodies with ashes and bones, have non-Vedic marks, matted hair, and wear garments of tree bark, are said to be pasandis. Those brahmanas who are devoid of the marks and symbols dear to Vishnu, such as conches, discs,and vertical-lined tilaka worn on the forehead, are said to be pasandis. That brahman who does not follow the practices given in the sastra should be known as a pasandi and should be condemned by all people. Those who have no devotion for the Lord Visnu are said to be pasandi. One who behaves as he likes and offers oblations in to the fire for the worship of deities other than Lord Vishnu should be known as a pasandi, for only Lord Vishnu is the enjoyer of fruit of all sacrifices and is the deity of brahmanas. He who considers Lord Vishnu as equal to other deities such as Brahma and myself, Rudra,should always be called a pasandi. That brahmana, who with his speech, body,and deeds dose not recognize Vishnu as Supreme,is a pasandi. What is the use of saying much in this regard? Those brahmanas who are not devotees of Vishnu should never be asked any questions, should never be talked to,and should never be seen,"
Quote:
"....O powerful Rudra,in every age in My different incarnations I too shall worship you to delude the demons. Following these doctrines,they will undoubtedly fall down..."

Mahadeva then said to goddess Parvati, "O auspicious one, as instructed by Lord Vishnu, I distributed the tamasic puranas and the pasandi Shiva doctrines. O sinless one, by entering Gautama and other brahmanas with my potency I proclaimed texts outside the Vedic fold. Adopting the system I gave, all of the wicked demons became averse to Lord Vishnu, and were enveloped in ignorance."


: Shri Padma Purana, Uttara Khanda Chapters 235-236


Wow! Sure makes you wonder who fabulated this "Padma Purana" and for which war! :D

Yogkriya
01 September 2010, 03:58 PM
THIS THREAD WAS MEANT FOR DISCUSSION EXCLUSIVELY BETWEEN ME AND GRAMES, BASED ON GAUDIYA PERSPECTIVE.
IF ANYBODY DOES NOT SUBSCRIBE TO THIS, DON'T READ IT.
DON'T VISIT THIS SECTION IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT.
BY THE WAY ME AND GRAMES ARE DONE WITH OUR DISCUSSION ON THIS TOPIC.

Namah Shivaya Dear Dasa,
That type of private discussion can be done best by email.
This is a public forum. And it is bound to raise interest or disinterest for or against an opinion.
Public speakers should be aware of such facts.

Many times dear Gaudiyas consider themselves as complete authorities on any spiritual matter, including the position of Lord Shiva (though outside the Gaudiya camp's focus) and feel excited to give their opinion about it. Non-Gaudiyas also feel similar interest and excitement at times over your opinions and should be free to express them. :)


AS FAR AS THE VERSES WHICH PROPOSE LORD SIVA TO BE SUPREME, WE ACCEPT THEM AS IT IS, FOR WE UNDERSTAND THEM TO BE SAID FOR LORD SADA-SIVA, WHO IS NONE OTHER THAN VISNU-TATTVA, AND VISNU-TATTVA IS SUPREME. THEREFORE, THE SUPREMACY OF VISNU-TATTVA, AND NOT SIVA TATTVA IS ESTABLISHED IN THOSE VERSES.
THIS IS FIRST REASON.

THIS CAN BE UNDERSTOOD BY DEVOTEES WHO ARE UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF LORD SIVA, THE GREATEST OF VAISHNAVAS.

So the only difference is of the name then. Since SadaShiva is Vishnu tattva then Vishnu tattva in its essence is nothing but Shiv Tattva!!
So why Shiva tattva has no so called supremacy here?? Consider me not guided by Lord of the Lords - Shiva, but by Krishna the greatest of Shaivas who stood on one leg without food or water for months trying hard to please Lord Shiva in every incarnation. Consider me guided by the Vishnu tattva contained in Vishnu who plucked his eye and offered it on Shivlinga as he worshiped it everyday and as Shiva is pleased he bestows upon Vishnu the present of Sudarshan chakr.

THERFORE HE SAYS TO DEVI PARVATI IN PADMA-PURANA:

ONLY THE DEVOTEES OF SIVA (READ TRUE-DEVOTEES) CAN UNDERSTAND THE MEANING OF STATEMENT UNDELINED ABOVE.

LORD SIVA CLEARLY SAYS THAT ONE WHO CONSIDERS LORD VISNU TO BE AT SAME POSITION AS "RUDRA" (NOT "SADA-SIVA") IS CALLED A PASHANDI (HYPOCRITE).

SECOND REASON - FOR THOSE WHO ARE NOT THE TRUE DEVOTEES OF SIVA, FOR THEM THESE VERSES ARE SPOKEN TO FURTHER DELUDE THEM (DEMONS) , AS LORD VISNU SPEAKS TO LORD SIVA:

Dandavat Pranamas to all the Vaisnavas, and happy Krsna-Janmastami.

Talk between Shiva and Parvati is part of tantras and agamas etc and to be considered as void by default for any authentic Gaudiya thought. If you quote Shiva Parvati samvad to prove a point, then this is nothing but hypocrisy since in the Gaudiya philosophy all or most literature spoken by Shiva is tamsik.
Here also you are trying to prove a similar point that unless supremacy of Vishnu is establish, anything said is false and meant for "demons" and anybody considering Shiva as supreme is a "pasandi" (favorite Krishnaite term besides chandal).
This hypocrisy goes so far out that it dares to cancel out everything said by Krishn himself, Lord Brahm and sages on Lord Shiva. In one of my previous messages on page 6 of this thread, I've quoted various verses not only from the Vedas, but also from Bhagvatam.

Besides, if you like to quote from Padma Puran, why not quote from ShivGita Ram-Shiv samvad? It's part of Padma-Puran too. And no it's not there in the BBT Prabhupad version. There is a version of Mahabharata published by Prabhupad. Place where Shri Krishn explains about Lord Shiva is also not there for obvious reasons.

The whole tamasic passion of the god POSITIONING agenda of the Gaudiyas is rather silly. Something along the lines of - 'my daddy's stronger than your daddy. If your daddy beats my daddy up, my daddy's still stronger and better, cuz whatever your daddy does is not authorized by my daddy.'

A human being who is in an unrealized position, limited to just fine senses, with no sidhis, anubhutis whatsoever, no experience of Nirvikalp avastha is busy establishing the supremacy of Vishnu, Shiv .. Its nothing but sheer arrogance. A normal human who has no knowledge of his own true nature is busy establishing true nature of the "Inconceivable" Par-Brahm?!!

As shri Atanu quoted above: Shiv is denoted such terms as inconceivable, Self Effulgent, one whom BrahmA, Vishnu, and Mahendra fail to understand, creator of universe, secret and patiM patiinaaM paramaM parastaad (Controller of Controllers and Supreme beyond the Supreme).

Then how can we establish or even understand His position, not to talk about deciding and proving supremacy???
The Gaudiya perspective is that Vishnu tatva and Krishna is supreme. That is fine. It is directed by attachment to Krishna.
Personally I feel that it should not be intellectualized by the EGO.
It's a matter of the heart leading to the matter of intimate relationship of the soul with the super-soul.

Namaste!

Yogkriya.

Good wishes to all (not just "vaishnavs") on shri Krishna Janmashtami!!

Yogkriya
01 September 2010, 04:47 PM
Rudra is Lord Vishnu - that Vishnu, the Sri Pati is always supreme. That vishnu, who is laying on the Sesha is always Supreme. Oh. Mr YogKriya, why don't you learn the vast wisdom first before entering in to the VidyaSabha of greats? Svetasvatara upanishad is in fact Vaishnava upanishad but you may not have learnt the actual meanings - with grammar correctness from any Vaishnava scholar so why this unfortunate arrogance. Reading translations of some "Ananda"s will take away your eternal "Ananda" permanently and be aware of that.
Hare Krshna.!
All Glories to Shri Prabhupada



Grames,

It's amazing how you skidded past canceling all the Vedic, Puranic and other words of Brahma, Krisna, Rama, and came back to your God positioning agenda!!
Vishnu or Krishn who worshiped Shiv may well be supreme for you, but you still have to know HIM. And that's all that matters.
Since you have established for your mind who is supreme, now all that is left is to realize your higher SELF and know HIM. Good Luck!

Yogkriya

grames
02 September 2010, 03:38 AM
Oh dear,

Wishes for very happy Krshna Jasmastami.

It will be arrogance of mine if i say i canceled "ALL" the vedic, puranic and other words of great deities. If you are intending to talk/discuss about "Supremacy", please answer for the questions i have raised and also stick to the "must" rule that, to prove Lord Shiva as greatest, you have to prove every other deity as not Supreme.

For the SB verse, remember it is not a verdict on someone's position but a praise of Lord Shiva to convince Him to consume the poison. If you are so interested about knowing "ALL" before making opinions, then please go ahead and read the entire Bagavatam including the 40th verse on the same Chapter. Explain me how can YOU resolve such conflicts where Lord Shiva is in fact care about pleasing Shri Hari.

Finally, if you happen to believe this Shiva or Vishnu who is supreme is started by Gaudiya lines, you are totally wrong and that is what i was trying to communicate. My point is, if you are following Shaivaism, it is Lord Shiva ( Not Rudra) who is the supreme though such supremacy is not derived MAINLY from Vedic scriptures or Vedanta. (In pure Shaiva). There is one emotional post from another person here trying to prove Lord Rudra of Upanishad is Lord Shiva of Shaivaism. Only those who know Shaivaism or its philosophy can give a smile on such claims which in fact has no value for Shaivaites themselves. If you happen to believe Supremacy of Lord Shiva can be estabilished by Vedantic schools, in fact none of the Vedantic schools proclaim that so ( that includes advaita where there is no concept of Supremacy and talking about Supremacy of a deity with Advaitic idea is mere confusion. Adi Shankara himself is a devotee of Lord Govinda and do not forget that). There is no other authentic indian tradition other than Shaivaism which claims that Lord Shiva is Supreme and that is the information i was passing though to your dislike. This whole debate is about who is that "Supreme" person but the thread is not intended to discuss or prove who is Supreme among the God. Not just Gaudiya but the entire Vaishnava view is that, it is Lord Vishnu who is the Supreme Bagavan and the entire veda including the Mantra portion ( dividing vedic shrutis in to portions is again refuted by Shri Madhvacharya) only sing the glories of that one Bhavan who is none other than Shri Vishnu.

My only wonder is, for those who follow, practice Advaita why the concept of "Supremacy" Matter?
For those who follow Yoga, why the "personalities" even matter?
For those who follow Shaivaism, why the vedantic wisdom matter?

Be honest and at least understand the fact that, it is not the Gaudiyas or Vaishnavas in general who are going on and spreading some so called "Rumour" that Lord Shiva is not supreme. Vaishnava's business is not about declaring who is not supreme but it is the other way around. For Gaudiyas, Vaishnavas who is Supreme is already the core ideal and hence the label "Vaishanvas". Looking back at the history, it is always the Shaivaites who wanted to retain their mass and uphold their ideas as the high and only truth.

I still keep that question open where you have stated Lord Vishnu and Lord Shiva though have differences but both are Supreme and to explain what is the background for such claim? Until you explain that, it is impossible to give you any proper response because, if you are confused and if you assume we are confused , no one is going to be benefited.

One very interesting point i will put across from the Shaivaite philosophy...

There are not One, but they are not Two.!


Thanks.

atanu
02 September 2010, 04:33 AM
Oh dear,

For the SB verse, remember it is not a verdict on someone's position but a praise of Lord Shiva to convince Him to consume the poison.

:o Such glib and smooth explanation. Congrats. When sages say that Vishnu, BrahmA fail to comprehend Him, grames says He knows the reason that the prayers were actually bribes, to induce Shiva to consume poison.


Om Namah Shivaya

grames
02 September 2010, 05:18 AM
Dear Atanu,

I do not make Lord Shiva a fool but you want to understand "Selectively" to fix the meaning for your satisfaction. My understanding is still mine and the fool can only be me at the end and not and never be that Lord Shiva.

Atanu, you are real great and you have your presence all over. ( If i say like this, in fact it is to some extend true and for the reason that i have seen you wherever i have been and you are ALL over wherever i have been, be it hindudharma forums or hindunet forum. Does that make Atanu all pervasive? Limit is on our opportunities, knowledge about each other and importantly our remembrance.) So, not to violate the meaning for verse 40 later on and to the entire Bagavata theme, i do take the understanding of the verse in focus as what i stated before. It is praise on Lord Shiva alone.

If i have to understand your meaning as the ultimate, i would be delighted to ask your explanation for verse 40 and also more verses i have put forth from SB few threads before with out loosing any meanings for all such verses.

Dear Atanu, i am not going to challenge your belief cos its not my right. I am not going to say YOUR Lord Shiva is not supreme and i will never say it or said it. I just want to give you one analogy.... ( inspired from Ramana MahaRshi)

There is a screen and a beautiful gigantic picture of a complex being made up of so many lines, circles, squares and different different shapes each on its own can give a complete perspective. ( A Line being Line, Circle being Circle etc.).

With out seeing this actual picture on the screen, one person attempts to describe how it looks like, how great it is, how wonderful feelings it evoks etc.

Then there are commentators who read this and start to speculate on wow, the description of the Line is fantastic and the whole picture must be just the Line cos it is Fantastic. Same goes on for Circle, octagon etc.

My curiosity and faith does not let me be get satisfied with description of a Line or circle or even the nature of the screen and i am trying to know the ACTUAL picture to know for myself what is that TRUTH. This is my position, my situation and i gladly accept this with out any shame. I also believe, there are great Atma's in this land who have seen this picture and gave the HOW TOs to follow to see the big picture by yourself. I am following their HOW TOs and all my emotional responses, understanding, reasoning is totally based on their HOW TOs. So, surely i may not follow your standards, may not meet your expectations until unless i start to see you have also seen that whole picture or the personalities who you follow have seen that whole picture.

Hare Krshna!

atanu
02 September 2010, 07:15 AM
Dear Atanu,
With out seeing this actual picture on the screen, one person attempts to describe how it looks like, how great it is, how wonderful feelings it evoks etc.

Then there are commentators who read this and start to speculate on wow, -----!

Namaste Grames

If i continue any more on this, I will be shameless. Your example is also wrong. Ramana Maharshi taught of seeing only the print and ignoring the paper.

Here, in this case, Prajapatis, including Vishnu, pray to manifest Shiva as inconceivable, self effulgent Param Atman, whom even the Supreme controllers fail to understand. And you offer a glib explanation: For the SB verse, remember it is not a verdict on someone's position but a praise of Lord Shiva to convince Him to consume the poison.

Then further, in the above post, you seem to insinuate that me (and some others probably) are not seeing the complete picture.

I agree I am an egotist of high order. But are you seeing the complete picture?

Best Wishes.

Om Namah Shivaya

Yogkriya
02 September 2010, 07:20 AM
Oh dear,

Wishes for very happy Krshna Jasmastami.

It will be arrogance of mine if i say i canceled "ALL" the vedic, puranic and other words of great deities. If you are intending to talk/discuss about "Supremacy", please answer for the questions i have raised and also stick to the "must" rule that, to prove Lord Shiva as greatest, you have to prove every other deity as not Supreme.

Dear Grames,

Thanks for the Janmashtami wishes.

As I said before, the tamasik passion to prove who is supreme and supremacy of my God over your God disease is quite widespread in the Gaudiya camp. Fortunately the yogic and Shaiv, shakt camps are not struggling with this termite in the EGO's wooden home.

Yes you have raised the questions before. One of them is bhakti with or without POLITICS. I had decided not to answer them due to 3 reasons: 1. It is Abhaycharan De's (Prabhupad's) birthday. So I decided to refrain from pointing to the politics. 2. Straight forward truth irritates and disturbs the Gaudiyas and eventually the healthy discussion may turn into an argument of the egos, that may serve no good purpose. 3. Today is Janamashtami.
For many its the day for celebration, exercises like breaking of curd pots, standing in mile long rows in front of temples. For me its also the day for special sadhnas, so I conserve my energies. If you still desire for the answers, I'll bring them in next.



For the SB verse, remember it is not a verdict on someone's position but a praise of Lord Shiva to convince Him to consume the poison. If you are so interested about knowing "ALL" before making opinions, then please go ahead and read the entire Bagavatam including the 40th verse on the same Chapter. Explain me how can YOU resolve such conflicts where Lord Shiva is in fact care about pleasing Shri Hari.

Lord Shiva drank poison because no one else had the capacity to gulp down the Halahal. Not Vishnu, nor Krsna, nor Brahma nor anybody else. He drank it for saving the world. That is his endless compassion. He is Ashutosh. Its not a question of "pleasing Hari". Is Hari pleased when people drink poison? Are you going to please Hari too?
It is impossible to realize or understand or comprehend Lord Shiva by reading a thousand Bhagvatams. How can one know "ALL" by simply reading a Bhagvatam chapter?! Reading stories and intellectualizing is not the key to comprehending and knowing the divine.
But I'm aware of the story telling lineages. They are not sadhaks. They are story tellers. We find them by hundreds in Mathura and Vrindavan. No problem. That's also a past time. And a time pass too.


Finally, if you happen to believe this Shiva or Vishnu who is supreme is started by Gaudiya lines, you are totally wrong and that is what i was trying to communicate. My point is, if you are following Shaivaism, it is Lord Shiva ( Not Rudra) who is the supreme though such supremacy is not derived MAINLY from Vedic scriptures or Vedanta. (In pure Shaiva). There is one emotional post from another person here trying to prove Lord Rudra of Upanishad is Lord Shiva of Shaivaism. Only those who know Shaivaism or its philosophy can give a smile on such claims which in fact has no value for Shaivaites themselves. If you happen to believe Supremacy of Lord Shiva can be estabilished by Vedantic schools, in fact none of the Vedantic schools proclaim that so ( that includes advaita where there is no concept of Supremacy and talking about Supremacy of a deity with Advaitic idea is mere confusion. Adi Shankara himself is a devotee of Lord Govinda and do not forget that). There is no other authentic indian tradition other than Shaivaism which claims that Lord Shiva is Supreme and that is the information i was passing though to your dislike. This whole debate is about who is that "Supreme" person but the thread is not intended to discuss or prove who is Supreme among the God. Not just Gaudiya but the entire Vaishnava view is that, it is Lord Vishnu who is the Supreme Bagavan and the entire veda including the Mantra portion ( dividing vedic shrutis in to portions is again refuted by Shri Madhvacharya) only sing the glories of that one Bhavan who is none other than Shri Vishnu.

I'm not interested in Madhavacharya or Ramanujacharya.
Also don't entangle me by throwing in this supremacy of Shiva over Rudra etc. I've seen the Hare Krsnas prove to me Rudra is Shiva and Shiva is born out of Brahma before. Now it comes around the other way. The most hypocritical thing is that Hare Krsnas use Shiva quotes, and all other quotes to prove a point, whereas they don't accept their authorities. Gaudiyas differ from Ramanuj and they differ from Shiva or Shakaracharya. So why quote them to prove a point?
Since you believe that Shiva came to spread "false knowledge" why quote him??? Be truthful to your clan and cancel all his words by default!



My only wonder is, for those who follow, practice Advaita why the concept of "Supremacy" Matter?
For those who follow Yoga, why the "personalities" even matter?
For those who follow Shaivaism, why the vedantic wisdom matter?

Be honest and at least understand the fact that, it is not the Gaudiyas or Vaishnavas in general who are going on and spreading some so called "Rumour" that Lord Shiva is not supreme. Vaishnava's business is not about declaring who is not supreme but it is the other way around. For Gaudiyas, Vaishnavas who is Supreme is already the core ideal and hence the label "Vaishanvas". Looking back at the history, it is always the Shaivaites who wanted to retain their mass and uphold their ideas as the high and only truth.

I still keep that question open where you have stated Lord Vishnu and Lord Shiva though have differences but both are Supreme and to explain what is the background for such claim? Until you explain that, it is impossible to give you any proper response because, if you are confused and if you assume we are confused , no one is going to be benefited.

One very interesting point i will put across from the Shaivaite philosophy...

There are not One, but they are not Two.!

Thanks.

Grames, I think you are going around in circles and beating around the bush trying to extract something along the channel that you have framed to move in your certain way.
Let's see they are not one and not two, so what do you understand from this?? There is no question of supremacy in Shaivism. Lord Shiva lays under the feet of Kaali to pacify her. On the other hand he pacifies Narsimha dev by appearing as a more powerful deity Sharbhesh.
Shivam Sarva mayam. There is nothing else in this universe except Shiva.
If you read Shiv Gita where Shiva shows his universal form to Rama, he shows all the 10 avataras of Vishnu within himself, including the Krishna avatara and his leelas and killing of Kans.

And yes, Shaivas don't have this struggle of supremacy proving. Its the new born Kaliyuga sects like Gaudiyas that came about 400 years back that have to make propaganda. Shaivism is as old as forever. If you study Hinduism, Shiva worship has been a standard norm at the time of Rama, Krishna .... The Gopis worshiped Shiva, Krishna worshiped Shiva, Nand gram worshiped Shiva, just about everyone.
Kunti was a staunch worshiper of Lord Shiva. Why don't you have a look at the Bhojpur temple of the time with the huge Shivalinga in Madhya Pradesh? Gandhari was a stanuch devotee of Shiva who cursed Krishna that all his coming generations will self destroy. Lord Shiva himself says to Krishna that Krishna has worshiped him in every incarnation.
If Krishna himself says so, then it has to be true.
To be honest, if the Gaudiyas don't recognize Shiva's supremacy or anything else, nothing changes, nor in this world, nor in the egos of anybody Gaudiya or not.
But the silly concocted stories and concocted so called "reasons" why Brahma said so to Shiva or why Vishnu or Krishna praised Shiva etc.. are good entertainment.

Anyways, there are people who believe such stories and there are those who don't. And then there are those who are aware of several scriptural bungling by story tellers too. :)

Once again, please accept my good wishes for Janamashtami.

Jai Shri Krishna, the greatest devotee of Lord Shiva!

Yogkriya

Yogkriya
02 September 2010, 07:23 AM
Here, in this case, Prajapatis, including Vishnu, pray to manifest Shiva as inconceivable, self effulgent Param Atman, whom even the Supreme controllers fail to understand. And you offer a glib explanation: For the SB verse, remember it is not a verdict on someone's position but a praise of Lord Shiva to convince Him to consume the poison.


Namaste bandhu Atanu!

I can't agree more with this. Thank you.

Best wishes,
Jai Mahakaal!
Yogkriya.

satay
02 September 2010, 02:33 PM
namaskar,


My only wonder is, for those who follow, practice Advaita why the concept of "Supremacy" Matter?


Thanks.

Actually, I am curious about it as well...
but I can't get into this discussion because then I will be seen as being partial to one side.

kiya kabooter
02 September 2010, 02:36 PM
Originally Posted by grames http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?p=49947#post49947)
My only wonder is, for those who follow, practice Advaita why the concept of "Supremacy" Matter?


Thanks.


Regardless of what you follow or practice, why does it matter? The "supremacy"? Don't all paths lead to God?

Yogkriya
03 September 2010, 01:44 AM
Regardless of what you follow or practice, why does it matter? The "supremacy"? Don't all paths lead to God?

Actually true. And this is confirmed by Shri Krishn to Arjun too.

Namaste.

YogKriya.

Jogesh
03 September 2010, 12:16 PM
This is an interesting claim, in fact I have heard it before. I have even heard it somewhere, "Lord Chaitanya was a Mayavadi".

Do you have a source for this? Even if for whatever reason you want to discount the entire Chaitanya-Charitamrita (which of course is full of stories about Advaitins being "converted"), it still wouldn't tally with Chaitanya supposedly unearthing the Brahma-Samhita. The Brahma-Samhita likely being one of the most difficult texts to facilitate an Advaitic slant.

Thanks.

I know you are not familier with this and frankly I'm not sure I want to start in with you. There are so many references in this regard that my quoting them would inflame this thread more than it already is...

seriously

Yogkriya
03 September 2010, 01:09 PM
I know you are not familier with this and frankly I'm not sure I want to start in with you. There are so many references in this regard that my quoting them would inflame this thread more than it already is...
seriously

Namaste Jogesh!

As a little point to Rasa's quote:
The one who is Mayavadi is actually a dualist as per Advaita Vedanta.
Dualism means Maya, illusion. Bhed. Actually - Bhed-Bhaav!
No wonder dualists focus so much on the differences like Rudra cannot be Shiva Shiva cannot be SadaShiva Shiva just is not Shambhu so is it Shambhu or Shiva you are talking about ehem... Darn! lol .
Though not one of these people have the power to reach neither Shambhu, Rudra or Shiva. So what's the point! ;-)

Regards to all,

YogKriya

AhamAtma
07 September 2010, 01:40 PM
There is one emotional post from another person here trying to prove Lord Rudra of Upanishad is Lord Shiva of Shaivaism. Only those who know Shaivaism or its philosophy can give a smile on such claims which in fact has no value for Shaivaites themselves.

First of all, it is very clear that you lack even an iota of knowledge about shaivate philosophy.



If you happen to believe Supremacy of Lord Shiva can be estabilished by Vedantic schools, in fact none of the Vedantic schools proclaim that so

Your jejune statements are really risible. It is very clear that you are unaware of vedantic schools and Srouta tradition in Ancient India. Srikantha Acharya wrote Bhashya on Brahma Sutras much before Ramanujacharya. Both Srikantha's Shivaadvaita and Ramanuja's Sri Sampradaya gave Vishistadvaita interpretations. Bodhayana Maharshi has written a "Vritti" to Brahma Sutras. Nilakanta Sivaradhya has written Nilakanta Bhashyam, projecting the harmony between the Brahma Sutras of Badarayana and Vritti Sutras of Bodhayana Maharshi. Vedantic Schools of Shaivism existed even before Ramanuja's Sri Sampradaya of Vaishnavism.



( that includes advaita where there is no concept of Supremacy and talking about Supremacy of a deity with Advaitic idea is mere confusion. Adi Shankara himself is a devotee of Lord Govinda and do not forget that)

Of course, Shankara is beyond sectarian popogandas. Shankara saw Atman everywhere. He called it as "Govinda" while writing 'Bhajagovindam'. similarly he called the same 'Atman' as 'Shiva' while writing 'Shivaandanda lahari'.

Sahasram varthanthe jagathi vibhutha kshudra phalada
Na manye swapne vaa thadanusaranam that krutha phalam
Hari brahmadeenamapi nikata bhaja masulabham
Chiram yache shambho shiva thava padombhoja bhajanam

Thousands of Gods abound,
Offering trifling gifts to them who pray,
And never even in my dreams would I pray.
Or request gifts from them.
To Shiva who is impossible to obtain/understand even for Vishnu, Brahma and other Gods.
I would beseech and beg always,
For his lotus like feet.

------ Adi Shankaracharya.


Karomi twapoojam sapadhi sukhadho me bhava vibho,
Vidhitwam Vishnutwam dhisasi khalu tasya phalamithi,
Punascha twam dhivi bhuvi vahan pakshi mrugatha
Madrushtwa tat khedam kada miha sahe Sankara Vibho.

Perform of I your worship,
And you appear before me soon,
And you become granter all pleasures to me ,
Oh Lord who is everywhere.
But if you grant the position of creator,
Or the position of Lord Vishnu instead,
As a reward for my worship,
Then I would have to become a bird and fly in the sky,
Or Become an animal and dig deep in the earth,
To see you again my Lord.
How can I bear this sorrow of not seeing you,
Oh Lord Sankara who is everywhere.

---- Adi shankaracharya.




There is no other authentic indian tradition other than Shaivaism which claims that Lord Shiva is Supreme



You have enlightened us. In fact, you could put it in a different way as well. i.e., There is no other authentic indian tradition other than Vaishnavism which claims that Lord Vishnu is Supreme


Regards,
AhamAtma.


manaḥ pratyakcitte savidham avadhāyāttamarutaḥ
prahṛṣyadromāṇaḥ pramadasalilotsaṅgitadṛśaḥ
yad ālokyāhlādaṃ hrada iva nimajyāmṛtamaye
dadhaty antas tattvaṃ kim api yaminas tat kila bhavān

O Lord Shiva, Thou art indeed that unspeakable truth which the Yogis realize through meditation on the Self, on controlling the breath according to the scriptural directions, and realize which they shed tears of thrilling joy and swimming as it were in a pool of nectar, enjoy inner bliss.


trayī sāṃkhyaṃ yogaḥ paśupatimataṃ vaiṣṇavam iti
prabhinne prasthāne param idam adaḥ pathyam iti ca
rucīnāṃ vaicitryād ṛjukuṭilanānāpathajuṣāṃ
nṛṇām eko gamyas tvam asi payasām arṇava iva

There are different paths of realization as enjoined by the three Vedas, Sānkhyā, Yoga and Pāśupata and Vaishnavam . Persons following different paths – straight or crooked according as they consider that this path is best or that one is proper due to the difference in temperaments, reach Thee alone O Lord Shiva, just as rivers enter the ocean.

grames
07 September 2010, 05:59 PM
Thank you for your comments.

Vaishnavaism exist from day 1 of creation and Lord Brahma is the first Bhakta. I am sure you can say the same for Siva worship which i am not going to content. I am not interested is proving your God is not supreme unless you are interested in proving something in that order. For me, the Supreme, SvaTantra is very essential to understand the spiritual wisdom and with out that principle its impossible to understand any. That SvaTantra is Lord Vishnu alone and that is the stand. Lord Shiva is discussed here with that perspective and no matter what is discussed here, we are not going to change the altars in our house or replace the idols, pic etc.

I will not say i am expert in Shaivaism but i am aware of different schools with in Shaivaism. My learning of Shaivaism is the southern Smarta versions mostly and the Agastiya lineage strengthen by the Nayanmars are my sources.

I would be more happy if you can provide the time line of these so called "vedantic" Shaivaism because, the information i have dates the vedantic orientation of Shaivaism close to 13th century ( which is also the dates of Shrikantacharya).

Oh dear, i repeat... there is no other Authentic tradition which holds Lord Shiva as Supreme and the other way around is also true, Vaishnavas alone worship Lord Vishnu as Supreme. ( Note down that, i am not talking about mere worship or ista devata idea here. Supremacy is a different notion altogether).

AhamAtma
07 September 2010, 10:05 PM
I would be more happy if you can provide the time line of these so called "vedantic" Shaivaism because, the information i have dates the vedantic orientation of Shaivaism close to 13th century ( which is also the dates of Shrikantacharya).



As per Encylopedia of Religion, Shiva Advaita was propounded by Srikantha (ca 1050), it is also called Shiva Vishishtadvaita. The soul does not ultimately become perfectly one with Brahman, but shares with the Supreme all excellent qualities. Ramanuja was a contemporary of Srikanthacharya. But Ramanujacharya was much younger and died in the year 1137 AD.



Oh dear, i repeat... there is no other Authentic tradition which holds Lord Shiva as Supreme and the other way around is also true, Vaishnavas alone worship Lord Vishnu as Supreme. ( Note down that, i am not talking about mere worship or ista devata idea here. Supremacy is a different notion altogether).


Vedik tradition believes that all Aksharas or syllables or bhijaaksharas originated from Brahman. I guess you are aware of the word "Vedanga". Vyakarana(Grammar) is a Vedanga. Panini is regarded as The father of Sanskrit Vyakarana (sanskrit grammar). He wrote Shiva Sutras. It is akṣarasamāmnāya, "recitation of phonemes," popularly known as the ''Shiva Sutras'' because they are said to have been revealed to Pāṇini by Lord Shiva.


'Nrittāvasāne Natarājarājō nanādadhakkām navapanchavāram |
uddhartukāmah sanakādisiddhān etadvimarshe sivasūtrajālam ||

"With an ambition to uplift sages and others, Lord Nataraja( Shiva in the form of divine dancer), at the finale of his Tandava, sounded his damaru fourteen (nine+five) times. Thus came out the Shiva Sutras"

Panini himself aknowledged that was originated from Damaru of Shiva(Brahman). Vedik tradition believes that the phonemes originated from Brahman not from demi-gods or non vedik gods.

The father Vyakarana, Panini himself acknowledged the supremacy of Lord Shiva by saying that phonemes originated from Shiva(Brahman). Was Panini,the father of Sanskrit Grammar unaware of Sanskrit ?


Kalidasa is regarded as Mahakavi. He said :

vaagarthaaviva samp.rktau vaagartha-pratipattaye |
jagataH pitarau vande paarvatI-parameshvarau ||

He addressed Shiva as 'Parameshwara'. What more required to prove Shiva's supremacy ? Was Kaalidasa unaware of Sanskrit ? Was he unaware of Vedas ?


I hope any Traditionalist must be aware of Subhashitas of Bharthari. He was neither a Shaivate nor a Vaishnavite. He belongs to traditional Vedik religion. In his Vairagya Shatakam, He said:

cūḍottaṃsita-candra-cāru-kalikā-cańcac-chikhā-bhāsvaro
līlā-dagdha-vilola-kāma-śalabhaḥ śreyo-daśāgre sphuran |
antaḥ-sphūrjad-apāra-moha-timira-prāg-bhāram uccāṭayan
śvetaḥ-sadmani yogināṃ vijayate jńāna-pradīpo haraḥ ||

All glory to Shiva who Resides in the the Yogis’ heart, the Light of Knowledge, Who smites away like the rising sun. The massive front of the endless night of ignorance overcasting human minds!— In whose wake follow all auspiciousness and prosperity, Who burnt up gay Lust as a moth, as if in sport, And who appears beaming with the lambent rays Of the crescent adorning his forehead: Rays that look pleasing like soft half-blooming buds.


Traditional Vedik people and Scholars like Panini, Kaalidasa, Bharthari..etc lived much before Vaishnavite & Shaivate sectarian dogmatic fights. They are neither Vaishnava nor Shaiva. They belong to Vedik Tradition. They themselves called Shiva as "Parameshwara". What more required to prove Vedik roots of Superiority of Lord Shiva ?



Regards,
AhamAtma.

Yogkriya
08 September 2010, 02:31 AM
Thank you for your comments.

Vaishnavaism exist from day 1 of creation and Lord Brahma is the first Bhakta. I am sure you can say the same for Siva worship which i am not going to content. I am not interested is proving your God is not supreme unless you are interested in proving something in that order. For me, the Supreme, SvaTantra is very essential to understand the spiritual wisdom and with out that principle its impossible to understand any. That SvaTantra is Lord Vishnu alone and that is the stand. Lord Shiva is discussed here with that perspective and no matter what is discussed here, we are not going to change the altars in our house or replace the idols, pic etc.

I will not say i am expert in Shaivaism but i am aware of different schools with in Shaivaism. My learning of Shaivaism is the southern Smarta versions mostly and the Agastiya lineage strengthen by the Nayanmars are my sources.

I would be more happy if you can provide the time line of these so called "vedantic" Shaivaism because, the information i have dates the vedantic orientation of Shaivaism close to 13th century ( which is also the dates of Shrikantacharya).

Oh dear, i repeat... there is no other Authentic tradition which holds Lord Shiva as Supreme and the other way around is also true, Vaishnavas alone worship Lord Vishnu as Supreme. ( Note down that, i am not talking about mere worship or ista devata idea here. Supremacy is a different notion altogether).

Dear Grames,

Namaste!

Please do not rope me into this Vaishnavism, Shiavism debate as I refuse to be a prey to the Gaudiyas shooting their cannon on the "Vaishnava", "Vedic" word shoulder. We will not waver from the Gaudiyas here. Kindly read the topic above "A GAUDIYA perspective". So we don't have to roam all over Vaishnavism to drum support for a narrow minded view.
Now, Gaudiyas may take things here and there from Ramanuja, or others, but then they differ from them too. There are people who can differ from Shri Chaitanya as well.

As far as your claim of Vedantic Shaivism of just being 13th century, then let me tell you yet again, that Shaivism did not get promoted during the bhakti kaal like Viashnavism. Most of Vaishnava saints whom you talk or don't talk about about came in the bhakti kaal. I said most of them, as there is bhakt Prahlad, Narad Muni and others that do not belong to this age. Having said this, I don't mean that Vaishnavism has sprouted up in bhakti kaal only. Sure its been there since ancient times too. We don't consider Lord Brahma as a "bhakta", but rather one in the trinity. But that is the Gaudiya point of view.
Lord Shiva worship has been there always, Vishnu, Ram, KRishn, Brahma, most rishis worshipped Shiva. Even Narada. If you know Narad also worshipped Shakti Bagla. So it is not something that has sprouted up in a 13th century. Shiva worship was well followed in Krishna's village too. Before Krishna abducts his wife she was going for a worship to a Shiva temple for blessings. Krishna himself worshipped Shiva as a staunch Shaiva.
Please also refer to Lord Krishna's words on Lord Shiva in Mahabharata spoken to Yudhishthir.


You bring up whole Vaishnavism. We are not discussing Vaishnavism as a whole here.
The Gaudiya sect of Vaishnavism appeared barely 400 years back in Kaliyuga. You are well aware of this.

I will clarify my point of what I mean as VEDIC and how it differs from your understanding of VEDIC. Mostly what is written by scriptures acceptable to Gaudiyas and it talke about the glories of God is Vedic.
For me Vedic pertains to the practices and culture followed during puranik times. This is also true for Satya, Dwapar and Treta yuga practices.
What were the sadha methods of Brahmrishi Vishvamitra??
The mantra, tantra methods that he devised for achieving success for a particular goal. Our ancient rishis used spiritual sciences and took matter and spirit together. There are different bodies within the grosser physical body apart from the soul. The Hare Krsnas talk about the soul alone. Vedic discipline nourishes all the bodies. There is Hath yog for the physical one and so on. I know of some GBCs who visit shri B.K. Aiyenger to learn Hath yog too. Ignoring the physical is not wise because without the vehicle the journey cannot be completed. Similarly there are different centers of consciousness that need to be awakened. Right now you are very limited to your five gross sense organs. But when the higher centers of consciousness are opened, your inner consciousness and horizon is expanded a thousand folds. Your understanding increases, so does your capabilities, both physical, mental and spiritual. Right now you are simply using your INTELLECT and logic.
Your mind comes before your consciousness. What is KRSNA CONSCIOUSNESS?? In mundane terms - it is to be aware of Krsna and think about him and serve him. This is good for people limited to the jurisdiction of physical senses as there is no other option.
But to be AWARE in Savikalp and Nirvikalp samadhi is not the same as that of intellectual or emotional thinking. GOD is rasa. He cannot be understood simply by intellectualization. And here we are arguing over the superiority of his position over another of his form. :D Hope you see the irony.

From this point of view, all this discussion is void. Its an ego trip. Nothing else. And it has been going on for centuries. Without opening the centers of consciousness, all we are left with is quote unquote books and theories.
If this wasn't true, then there was no need for Shri KRISHNA to open ARJUN's AGYA CHAKRA. If this was untrue, then there was no need for Krsna to instruct Arjuna to meditate on Anahat and Agya chakra controlling vital Pran and Apan vayus. This is an advanced technique of Kriya Kundalini yog that Krishna himself gives - that illuminates the sadhaka's consciousness but its something in your understanding unfortunately is the work of a "MUDHA". (Surely Krsna does not instruct Arjuna to get a pair of Khartalas, mridangam and have fun or go on book distribution as it is.)

But yes, without a Guru who himself has achieved siddhi in this, its hard to know or practice it. Arjuna had Krishna and Guru Dron.

Only sadhna is important and how far you have covered your way to KRISHNA / SHIVA is important. Rest of the fights are for religious politicians.

So Vedic for me means that which a) accepts the Vedic sadhnas, culture and mantras of the rishis, b) accepts the Vedas, Upanishads, Puranas without the politics of Shaiva scriptures are in tamas ignorance and only Vishnu scriptures are best., c) Follow through sadhnas. Further I can give many more reasons, but that will unnecessarily prolong the post.

Shri Vishvambhar Mishra who later came to be known as Chaitanya Mahaprabhu took the mantra Hare Rama Hare Rama and put Krishna before Rama and gave it to his followers. His method was to give this to the people with very limited understanding and engage their limited senses into Krishna bhakti through shravan, manan, kirtan and so on.. music binds the heart and senses. It engrosses the mind and senses both and if the body is dancing in ecstasy too, then it is engaged as well. This is a comparatively simpler and easier method and very good for many people in Kaliyug who cannot develop a tendency for advanced and more serious yogic practices. So this method was hailed as most important to instill more confidence. The practitioner must have good faith and confidence in the method that he practices. For this aim also, there is glorification of own sect, methods of worship etc. This is all nice. Later on as a few generations passed, some politics crept into and along with glorification of own path, demeaning of other paths also started taking place. Maybe this was done from preventing the followers not to go towards other paths.

So this demeaning part as I had explained in earlier posts is what I am against.
Also, since there is rejection of most other vedic practices that have always been considered as important during the times of shri Ram and Krsn, we should not reject them, even if we don't practice them, doesn't mean they are useless. Propitiating of Ganpati the Vedic God was canceled out in the last century by one of the Gaud acharyas as "not needed". As a vedic rule, no yagya, sadhna anishthan is started without first propitiating Ganpati (Lord Ganesh). Ganesha wrote the Vedas (Vyasa dictated). And this norm is followed in Hindu Sanatana Dharma without any bias by all Krsna, Rama or Shiva, Hanuman, Devi bhaktas.

So, I was talking about the Vedic practices. Imagine, someone following Krsna but not his practices! Yet calling himself as 100% Vedic without these practices or mantras. Not just that but rejecting it all as useless now. Or rather such gurus may not be available who are keeping these practices and mantras alive through sadhna.

So today we try to limit everything that was practiced by the rishis and yet claim to be 100% "vedic" simply to gain credibility. It would be nice if we say this is what we practice. And not put down others. But what I come across is "Yogis are materialists as they meditate on their own body parts" etc. kind of attacks. This is not very nice.

So in the end, we can both quote unquote several things in favor of Vishnu or Shiva bhakti, but to what avail? Simply to puff up our egos?! If you have manifested Vishnu/shriKrishn in your life, then you are blessed!

Thank you.

Warm regards,

Jai Shri Krishn!
Namah Shivaya!

YogKriya

grames
22 September 2010, 03:06 PM
Dear AhamAtma,

I have known to few great personalities who consider few Mortals as Supreme and even one of the greatest south indian poet exalted a human as Greater than God. I thought we were talking about the Samya which exalts Lord Shiva as Supreme with proper Vedic justification. If you thought i asked you about list of personalities who glorified Lord Shiva as Supreme, your answer is very nice and i indeed enjoyed the response in that context. Thanks for that.

Hare Krshna!

grames
22 September 2010, 04:38 PM
Dear YogKriya,

Hope everything is well with you! I only smile after reading your message and wanted to tell my answer in a story form.

One lady went to temple and was standing in the prayer queue. She saw a guy and girl standing next to each other and for her eyes, they looked very perfect couple. She was so delighted to see such a perfect pair and wanted to say something sweet to them. So, she went to the couple and started praising them and inquired,

Lady: What a beautiful couple you are. Where are you from? How long you have been married? Do you have kids? I am sure your kid will be very beautiful too. What did you name the kid? Is the kid going to school yet? Is your kid eating properly?

They responded individually...

Man: Mam, i am not married yet... i do not know who this girl is.
Girl: Oh my God... i do not know who this guy is. I am not married either.

They apologized to each other and all of them left the place. But the lady went on thinking and imagining how nice it would be if they are married, become a husband and wife in real life. How their kids will be, how their grand children will be etc.


So, asking me not to rope you in to Vaishavaism, shaivaism debate is like shooting you own feet cos i believe, it is you who dragged this thread in to one such conversation. In fact, i still believe and expect anyone with common sense and understanding capability to go back to the initial few messages on this thread and understand the "Gaudiya" view on Lord Shiva, Rudra before venturing in to any further discussion. For a person with different taste, lowest degree of satvik, the Gaudiya view is not easy to understand and it is not a surprise that, Lord Krshna Himself declare that,

manushyanam sahasresu
kascid yatati siddhaye
yatatam api siddhanam
kascin mam vetti tattvatah Bg 7.3

So, if you have given me advice and direction about "Gaudiya's" perspective, bare minimum i expect in return is, stick to your advice first. Its Gaudiya's perspective. If the discussion is about whether it is Right or Wrong, then lets discuss over that alone and philosophical understanding and conclusions are what i am interested in rather than any "personality" abuse. ( "Personal" here is not me but i am talking abt your referral on great Acharyas of this tradition)

You have no idea what i said so far or what i am trying to convey. I am not in to "dating" our ancient practices and i believe in Apursheyatva of Veda and for me putting a date on such practice is ridiculous thing. Considering some portion of time as Bhakthi Kaal etc. shows ignorance only. Brahma is a Bhakta, the highest Jiva, the Guru for all Jiva etc. have so many shruti support. Merely stating something will not prove otherwise. But, assuming that Gaudiyas believe Shiva worship is heretic or adharmic is your new invention and you still DO NOT KNOW THE SECRET why Gaudiyas worship Lord Krshna alone. Until you know or understand this SECRET, it will remain a secret only. It does mean it is unvedic, some privileged thing or some new invention of the era. Its just that, its subtle and for a person who is so much interested in impersonal practices, such subtle things are impossible to even grasp.

I have posted the Gopeswaa picture to indicate some information to you but you fail to recognize. Like that, you still believe that, Vaishanvas are Lord Shiva haters and the entire content of your message is written with that assumption. No vaishnava will deny Lord Shiva was worshiped by Lord Vishnu but a very good, honest, sincere vedantic student will still know that, it doesn't make Lord Vishnu inferior and Lord Shiva superior. Lord Krshna took the charioteer position for Arjuna but still Arjuna clearly states, I am your disciple and i have completely surrendered to You! Since, your object is not about Supremacy, i am not jumping in to these lines but you are keeping your guns assuming this is the "subject" we are discussing here. What is Vedic for me is what was Vedic for all the acharyas of SD and Veda is not mere recitation sound but a practical way of life.

Your understanding of Bhakthi Yoga is very childish. In fact, Bhakthi is composition of all other Yoga and Bhakthi is not mere sentimental, emotional thing. Its a disciplined practice, strict process before elevating in to the level of expanding the Bhava. Paroxa Gnana can only be obtained by VIdhi Bhakthi and Raganuga becomes automatic (or Aproxa) for such elevated Bhakta. In each Yug, there were different practices which were yielding the ultimate results and if you want to wrongly advocate that, in all Yugs people were doing KriyaYoga, such message will be false. Do not generalize it because your Guru said so. You can never become Brhama Rsi VIshwaMitra and imitating him will fail you forever. Yug Dharma plus Varna Dharma is the only practical means to obtain ultimate result and not some fanatic fancy illogical methods which has no authentic support or possibility of advancing. I am taking about those smart, sincere people who do self evaluation before they stick to what they want to follow knowing such choice will elevate them and give them the ultimate result that they desire.

Hare Krshnas do not talk about "soul" alone and it is your mere ignorance and i believe you are spending too much time with some newbies and believing that, that is what Hare Krshna means. In fact, i have known some initiated disciple who finds it very hard to strictly follow the prescribed process and there are so many compromises on it. (There are people who do not want to get initiated fearing such strict process and in this forum itself i have read someone saying chanting 16000 rounds is not possible. Can you chant 16000 rounds of any mantra with out break? Give a try and honestly tell how physical it is after you genuinely attempt it.)

Before i close this response... a caution note..

With out study of Shastra, there is no scope for True Jnana and with out proper understanding of Shastra there is only ignorance and no goal will be achieved by such ignorance. You are talking about "consciousness" in terms of grosser material ones or believing that it is your Atma but Hare Krshna's talking about spiritual consciousness, in other words the consciousness of Atma in terms of Bhava. In fact, God is not understandable at all and Gaudiyas or Hare Krshnas or any vaishnavas do not want to understand God by their Sadhana but to get His association by means of MOksha or Prema. Gaudiyas are unique and they do not even care about Moksha though it is the ultimate Goal for majority of "Hindus".




So Vedic for me means that which a) accepts the Vedic sadhnas, culture and mantras of the rishis,
How many of them you have accepted or aware of? How many of them you are following? How many yielded results so far? Or do you think, making a statement like the one above are mere abstract and impractical ones? Or do you think it changes with time, situation and place? Being practical has a different meaning and Veda or Vedic life is all about BEING PRACTICAL.


b) accepts the Vedas, Upanishads, Puranas without the politics of Shaiva scriptures are in tamas ignorance and only Vishnu scriptures are best.
It is not possible for you either to accept all 100% :). Either you are not aware of the Sukthis which states Lord Vishnu as Supreme, or you have to fall in to the cyclic confusion of, there is no Supreme but Lord Shiva is Supreme and Lord Vishnu is also Supreme and then....name all the thirty plus God as Supreme. Or deny that there is NO SUPREME at all and stop contending when someone believes they have Lord Vishnu as Supreme. ( Supreme can be only one so contention is illogical here.) Or hold your view that Lord Shiva alone is supreme ( unless you want to argue with someone with Pramanas from Shruti's and from Satvik Puranas only). Classification of Puranas are true, Classification of Agamas are true and you cannot deny it unless you come from non vedantic background. When you are non vendantic, there is no point in discussing Vedantic truths and it is like apples and oranges. Your wish list is just personal and do not impose it or portray it as Vedantic and you "care" so much about Vedic versions etc. Just be HONEST.


This is a comparatively simpler and easier method and very good for many people in Kaliyug who cannot develop a tendency for advanced and more serious yogic practices. Partially true :) Do not half read the information and publicize it so much. :). In Kali Yug, it is rare to practice "Advanced" Yoga and ( if you can do it, you are not criticized etc. We are more faith driven even in following such Kriya Yoga etc.). In your Yoga, you are concentrating your energy, consciousness towards inside points and in Krishna Bhakthi yoga, the objective is similar. The consciousness is turned towards Krshna who is also ANtrayami and He elevates the energy level of His surrendered Bhakta. ( You do not have faith in this...its your problem. But BG and Vishnu Purana etc clearly supports this truth). Bhakta is not worried about all the Chakaras in his body cos, he strongly believes Krshna will take care of him as once his surrender is complete. ( Surrender here is very very critical term to understand and only a Guru can explain what that means). What is Vedic is a not a simple deduction as you want it to be or just one set of pattern and 100% vedic in my earlier statement only mean it is Vedic practice and not 100% OF VEDIC which no one will ever be able to practice.

There are lot of wrong stories, illogical myths and believing such stories as Truth and building your faith on top of them will only indicate the tamasic nature of such believer.


But what I come across is "Yogis are materialists as they meditate on their own body parts" etc. kind of attacks. This is not very nice.It is a misunderstanding.... The four path of Yoga is never discriminated by SP or any Gaudiyas unlike you happen to believe. The comment is for those who started so many yoga centers and advertised like they are teaching you Vedic way of practicing Yoga etc. Secondly, among that four paths what is possible, what is superior is a totally different topic and you said you do not want to just talk about entire Vaishanavaism here. ( Entire Vaishnavaism unanimously declare that, Bhakthi is the ultimate path).

The contention is always about "impersonalism" or "idealism" and never been about Yoga Paths. They are different topics and of course, you will not be pleased to know Gaudiyas view on that either. Its just that, it is NOT FOR YOU.

As you said, if you advanced yourself, mastered controlling your ego and elevated your energy levels, you are blessed. :) My wishes for that. Whatever you path might be, be it good, bad or evil go to the fullest and you will either get liberation or permanent misery but at least you will know the result of your choice. That's what we call "Accomplishment".

Hare Krshna!

kahanam
23 November 2010, 09:53 PM
God is only One! Hari and Shiva are two of His myriad manifestations. He will not withold His Blessings just because one worships Him as Hari and another as Shiva!Om Tat Sat!:) :) :)

Ramakrishna
25 November 2010, 12:24 AM
God is only One! Hari and Shiva are two of His myriad manifestations. He will not withold His Blessings just because one worships Him as Hari and another as Shiva!Om Tat Sat!:) :) :)

:goodpost:

Wise words indeed!

Jai Sri Krishna

atmarama108
25 November 2010, 10:42 AM
Hare Krshna!
Very nice post prabhu! Hare Krishna!

Just to add to this thread - I have a very nice book called Siva-Tattva by Srila Narayana Maharaja. Here is a link to a writing of his on this subject.

http://www.purebhakti.com/teachers/bhakti-discourses-mainmenu-61/18-discourses-1990s/135-siva-tattva.html

Yogkriya
02 December 2010, 01:52 AM
Very nice post prabhu! Hare Krishna!

Just to add to this thread - I have a very nice book called Siva-Tattva by Srila Narayana Maharaja. Here is a link to a writing of his on this subject.

http://www.purebhakti.com/teachers/bhakti-discourses-mainmenu-61/18-discourses-1990s/135-siva-tattva.html

I'd like to know how Narada Muni speaks these words, the original sanskrit hindi version with quote reference, not what Narayan Maharaj says.
My reason is that in gaudiya preachings, one or other things get watered down in view of the Gaudiya philosophy. If a particular aspect in the original teachings is not exactly aligning with Gaudiya line of thought, it is altered, or maybe we can say that things are said from a Gaudiya point of view. So I'd like to read this without the Gaudiya coloring. In this link you sent, Lord Shiva says he's not dear to Krishna? Please send me link to original words if its there somewhere.
Thank you.
Best regards,
Jai Shri Krishna!!

Yogkriya

Adhvagat
29 December 2010, 07:11 PM
YogKriya... I guess that even from this text that you seem to doubt, the conclusion wouldn't be that Shiva is not dear to Krishna. It just shows a very complex situation that presents something that can be perceived as enmity at first sight, is indeed a very pure state of Bhakti.


Narada then said, “Prabhu, don’t cheat me. I know something. I have heard that the enemies of Krsna and the Pandavas, or the enemies of any bhaktas, worship you, and you give them some benediction. But that benediction is not totally foolproof. There is always some loophole there. Actually you cheat them to please your Lord Sri Krsna. I know that whatever you do, you do to ple ase Krsna. You are His dearest friend.”

[...]

Sankara is always serving Krsna. Narada knows this fact, but he wanted to glorify Sankara so that every one will know that he is very near and dear – and non-different from Krsna. How? “Saksad haritvena samasta sastrair uktas tatha bhavyata eva sadbhih kintu prabhor yah priya eva tasya vande guroh sri caranaravindam”. Here saksad haritvena means priyatvena haritvena. He is very near and dear. “Vaisnavanam yata sambhu – he is the greatest Vaisnava”.

Sankara-tattva is extremely complex. Brahma-tattva is not so complicated; he is always jiva-tattva. And sometimes, when there is no qualified jiva, Lord Visnu himself comes as Brahma. But Sankara is not like this. He is not jiva-tattva. Where does he live? Beyond Brahmaloka. After passing through the eight kinds of material coverings, after crossing the Viraja, Muktidhama, Mahakalapuram, and then Brahmaloka, there is the planet of Sankara. There he is known as Sadasiva, and he is Visnu-tattva.

Extremely interesting indeed.

However, I can see how this following paragraph can be a great discordance between Vaishnavas and Shaivas:


For any reason, if something sour is put into milk, it becomes yogurt. Yogurt is nothing but milk. It has all the potencies that are in milk, like ghee and so forth, but it is not milk. Milk can become yogurt, but yogurt cannot become milk. Sankara is like that. He is not an ordinary jiva. Sometimes, but very rarely, there may be a reason that Sadasiva cannot come to this world – if he is engaged in his destruction of the universe, or anything like that. In that case a qualified jiva can work as Siva; temporarily, but not permanently. So you should always try to honor Lord Sankara.

Om Tat Sat

Rasa1976
29 December 2010, 07:46 PM
Very nice post prabhu! Hare Krishna!

Just to add to this thread - I have a very nice book called Siva-Tattva by Srila Narayana Maharaja. Here is a link to a writing of his on this subject.

http://www.purebhakti.com/teachers/bhakti-discourses-mainmenu-61/18-discourses-1990s/135-siva-tattva.html

Shankara (whether or not he is Shiva) never really did what is described below..



In kali-yuga many persons wanted to worship Krsna, God, thinking, “He should fulfill all our desires. Simply by worshipping Krsna or His incarnations, He will be pleased and satisfy our worldly, material desires.” In this way they began to worship – not to please Krsna, but only because they wished that He would very easily arrange all of their needs. Sri Krsna thought, “This is very dangerous.” He called Sankara and told him, “Tell all the false devotees that, “You yourself are Brahma. Brahma satyam jaganmitya jiva brahma evanapara. This world is false. Jiva is Siva, jiva is Brahma, all these souls are Brahma. There is no need to worship any other God. You are God Himself. You are Paramabrahma.”

..instead, in spite of promoting Advait, he told his disciples they were fools and needed to worship Govinda. Maybe that is why he is "not dear to Krishna", lol.

Sahasranama
30 December 2010, 04:43 AM
..instead, in spite of promoting Advait, he told his disciples they were fools and needed to worship Govinda. Maybe that is why he is "not dear to Krishna", lol.
Indeed, the famous bhaja govindam of Shankaracharya, also see the following verse from the prabodha sudhakara of Shankaracharya. Shankaracharya has written the Saundarya Lahari, Ananda Lahari, Shivananda Lahari and the Prabodha Sudhakara which some people call the Krishnananda Lahari. These texts are more mature works of Shankaracharya, he wrote them in his later years.

काम्योपासनयार्थयन्त्यनुदिनं किंचित्फलं सेप्सितं
किंचित्स्वर्गमथापवर्गमपरैर्योगादियज्ञादिभिः।
अस्माकं यदुनन्दनाङ्घ्रियुगलध्यानावधानार्थिनां
किं लोकेन दमेन किं नृपतिना स्वर्गापवर्गैश्च किम्*॥ २५०॥

kāmyopāsanayārthayantyanudinaṁ kiṁcitphalaṁ sepsitaṁ
kiṁcitsvargamathāpavargamaparairyogādiyajñādibhiḥ |
asmākaṁ yadunandanāṅghriyugaladhyānāvadhānārthināṁ
kiṁ lokena damena kiṁ nṛpatinā svargāpavargaiśca kim || 250||

"Those who waste their time for the attainment of
celestial joys or liberation (mukti- apavarga) are FOOLS!
I do NOT want any of that! I only desire to remain engrossed
in the sweet remembrance of the lotus feet of Lord Krishna.
What is the need for pleasures of this world or heaven or
Mukti to exalted Prema bhaktas of the Lord?"

Rasa1976
30 December 2010, 09:49 AM
Another gem of Shankara's is sung every Ratha-Yatra day....

http://nitaaiveda.com/Compiled_and_Imp_Scriptures/Vaishnava_Song_Book/Sanskrit_Songs/Sri_Jagannathastakam.htm

Yogkriya
01 January 2011, 03:22 AM
Indeed, the famous bhaja govindam of Shankaracharya, also see the following verse from the prabodha sudhakara of Shankaracharya. Shankaracharya has written the Saundarya Lahari, Ananda Lahari, Shivananda Lahari and the Prabodha Sudhakara which some people call the Krishnananda Lahari. These texts are more mature works of Shankaracharya, he wrote them in his later years.

काम्योपासनयार्थयन्त्यनुदिनं किंचित्फलं सेप्सितं
किंचित्स्वर्गमथापवर्गमपरैर्योगादियज्ञादिभिः।
अस्माकं यदुनन्दनाङ्घ्रियुगलध्यानावधानार्थिनां
किं लोकेन दमेन किं नृपतिना स्वर्गापवर्गैश्च किम्*॥ २५०॥

kāmyopāsanayārthayantyanudinaṁ kiṁcitphalaṁ sepsitaṁ
kiṁcitsvargamathāpavargamaparairyogādiyajńādibhiḥ |
asmākaṁ yadunandanāṅghriyugaladhyānāvadhānārthināṁ
kiṁ lokena damena kiṁ nṛpatinā svargāpavargaiśca kim || 250||

"Those who waste their time for the attainment of
celestial joys or liberation (mukti- apavarga) are FOOLS!
I do NOT want any of that! I only desire to remain engrossed
in the sweet remembrance of the lotus feet of Lord Krishna.
What is the need for pleasures of this world or heaven or
Mukti to exalted Prema bhaktas of the Lord?"

Namaste and a Happy New Year!

Its not correct to say Shri Adi Shankara's work on Krishna is "more mature" as done in later years. So giving a color of less maturity to his divine praises towards all other deities. This stance can be that of Vaishnavas, but is a biased one. Adi Shankara was as mature in his worship and words he was when realizing his Saundarya Lahiri, Anand Lahiri or various strotras be it Kanakdhara strotra or Kaal Bhairav strotra.

Its a state of mind of a sadhak how deeply he goes into the worshipping bhakti aspect at a given time. By tagging it more mature when he's worshipping Krishna is not correct. Its almost like saying When I love my mother I'm more mature than when I'm love my father.
Regards,

Yogkriya

Sahasranama
01 January 2011, 05:00 AM
I am sorry for the confusion. You did not understand me, I said these texts are more mature in plurar, so I meant all the text I summed up, not just the prabodha sudhakara (krishnananda lahari), but also the Saundarya lahari, Shivananda Lahari etc. I was comparing it with the brahma sutra bhashya which he wrote when he was twelve years or so which is also a great classic work, but these various laharis are filled with ecstatic joy of bhakti.

Shivananda Lahari
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m64wc3rndnY

Saundarya Lahari
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNj8NM7Rwxs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipOwoVl1bQU)

Yogkriya
01 January 2011, 04:20 PM
I am sorry for the confusion. You did not understand me, I said these texts are more mature in plurar, so I meant all the text I summed up, not just the prabodha sudhakara (krishnananda lahari), but also the Saundarya lahari, Shivananda Lahari etc. I was comparing it with the brahma sutra bhashya which he wrote when he was twelve years or so which is also a great classic work, but these various laharis are filled with ecstatic joy of bhakti.

Shivananda Lahari
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m64wc3rndnY

Saundarya Lahari
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNj8NM7Rwxs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipOwoVl1bQU)

Namaste!
Yes I guess I didn't get it quite clear, but thanks for the clarification. :)
Best wishes in the new year!!
Jai Shri Krishn! Namah Shivaya!

Kumar_Das
06 January 2011, 12:02 AM
..instead, in spite of promoting Advait, he told his disciples they were fools and needed to worship Govinda. Maybe that is why he is "not dear to Krishna", lol.

You have quite the cheek to insult such an important personality in Sanatana Dharma as ShankarAchAryA don't you think?

Yogkriya
06 January 2011, 04:26 AM
You have quite the cheek to insult such an important personality in Sanatana Dharma as ShankarAchAryA don't you think?

Namaskar.

I'd like to put my two cents in..
Even bhakti or any sadhna gives rise to ahankar.
The ahankar of HK camp is evident with such careless words saying that Shri Shankaracharya is not dear to Shri Krishn. How do they know?
Shankaracharya the embodiment of siddhis, bhakti and vedanta is not dear to God? Anybody who does sadhna to get one siddhi knows without the grace of Guru and God, its not possible.



Another gem of Shankara's is sung every Ratha-Yatra day....

http://nitaaiveda.com/Compiled_and_Imp_Scriptures/Vaishnava_Song_Book/Sanskrit_Songs/Sri_Jagannathastakam.htm

... and then I wonder on the double standards of the HK. Dear Rasa, IF you are a hare Krsna devotee (belonging to the Gaudiya sub sampradaya/Iskcon) how can you accept Shri Adi Shankara's words as gems when you have already canceled him and his vendanta explanations as false knowledge?? Agreeing to Srila Prabhupad and Gaudiya lineage in the wake of a 16th century Vaishnava treatise - "Brahma Samhita" - Shiva came as Shankaracharya to spread "false" knowledge to delude the people of Kaliyuga.
Yet I wonder how HK accept when Shri Shankaracharya chants about Krsna or Vishnu, but readily reject when he hails Shiva or other deities. This is selective biased acceptance. Similarly, when Shri Krishna himself talks about Lord Shiva, it is ignored. Shri Prabhupad did not translate the Mahabharat Anushasan parva part where Lord Krsna describes Lord Shiva. So we accept even Lord Krishna selectively in line with the lineage narrowed down philosophy line. This restricts spiritual vision. This is typical of sampradayas. But not of the vast Vedic culture. Not of Shri Krishna, not of Shri Shankaracharya. That is why Shri Shankara can chant the holy names of Lord Vishnu with similar bhakti and love as much as he chants and sings the glory of Lord Shiva or gives the powerful Kanakdhara strotra chanting with such power that rain of gold comes flowing down. This is Shankara. This Vedic culture. This is Sanatana Hindu Dharma.

My post about this is aimed towards the Hare Krsna stance on Shri Adi Shankaracharya, not specifically to Rasa. Though as he sweetly mentions the said works to be gems brought to light by Shri Shankara.
Namaskar.

Yogkriya

anatman
13 January 2011, 01:59 AM
Q: Is Sada Siva non different and simultaneously different from Visnu -tattva?
A: Sada-Siva is Visnu-Tattva and not different from him.

Q: Why does Lord Visnu manifest as Sada-Siva?
A: To propagate the glories of Naam-prabhu and Visnu-Bhakti through Hari-Katha mentioned in various scriptures like Ramayana and Puranas etc. Devi partvati questions Lord Sada-Siva and he answers, through which the propagation of Sanatana Dharma takes place.

Q: Where is Lord Sada-Siva's abode?
A: It is above the tatastha-region (marginal region) within the adhyatmika-akasa but below the vaikuntha lokas. It is non destructable.

Q: Who attains his abode?
A: The bhaktas who develop strong faith in Siva after hearing the pasttimes of Hari from him attain this abode. They constantly hear Hari-Katha and also serve Lord Visnu (in form of sada-Siva) there.

Q: Who is Rudra-Siva then?
A: He is Visnu-Tattva, but with an adulterating principle (mAyik-vikAr) of three potencies - tamo-guNa of mAya-Sakti, swalpata-guNa of tatastha- Sakti, Cit+Samvit guNa of Cit-Sakti. So he is not pure visnu-tattva. His position is described as that of different as well as similar to Visnu-tattva, but he also not "pure-jiva-tattva" but also not "swamsa-tattva" because he accepts the swalpata-guNa of tatastha-Sakti. He is like a Lord who is in ddirect contact with mAya, though mAya cannot touch the Lord. In this way, the position of Rudra-Siva is unthinkable (avicintya).

Q: Where is the abode of Rudra-Siva?
A: Within the material sky, and his abode is temporary.

Q: Who goes to the abode of Rudra-Siva?
A: Those who worship Siva with faith as an independent form of God may go there, and attain the sanga of highest-vaisnava and then understand sidhhanta clearly. They are then either elevated to higher planates, or come back to this planet where they carry on their bhajana.

Q: Who propagates the cheating and Asurik philosophies like mAyAvAd?
A: Lord Rudra-Siva appears in the form of Sankracarya in Kali-Yuga to propagate this philosophy to athiests and Asuras in the form of Brahmins (Kalim Ashritya jayante rAkshasAh brahma yonisu - padma purana - Rakshsas are born as human beings and brahmins in kali yuga)

Q: Why does Lord accepts the position of Rudra-Siva?
A: For the cause of pralaya (annihilating the universe) and preaching false-philosophies to RakshasAs. He is adhiSthAtri-deva of tamo-guNa.

Q: Who is Sambhu?
A: Sambhu is not really a personal form of God. He is just a principle or a prototype that is menifested during the beginning of creation as "Sambhu-Linga" (the male masculine emblem of virAt-puruSa) - though not literally in that sense. It is just the "means" by which the Supreme Lord - Pratham puruSa accepts the indirect contact with mAya-sakti).

Q: "Vaisvana-nam yatha Sambhu" referes to whome?
A: Rudra-Siva because Sada-Siva is non-different from Visnu-Tattva.

Q: Is it correct that a jiva who fulfilsl ALL the duties of varnAsrama-dharma for 1000 life times, attain the position of Siva?
A: Yes, this is the verdict of bhAgwatam and it is a principle essentially followed by Gaudiya Vaisnava Sampradaya, as it is.

Q:How is this possible, because Sada Siva is Visnu tattva and Rudra Siva is adlterated principle of Vinsu-Tattva?
A: Such Jiwas attain the position of one of the ekadash-rudraa, whoch are the empowered incarnations of the Lord. Their position is again temporary, and their abodes are in material world only.



Please let me know in ISKCON scale how much percentage(%) Sada-shiva, Rudra, Rudra-Siva, Sambhu etc are....

This is hilarious:Roll:

giridhar
14 January 2011, 03:24 AM
Please let me know in ISKCON scale how much percentage(%) Sada-shiva, Rudra, Rudra-Siva, Sambhu etc are....

This is hilarious:Roll:


very true !!! The Tiru AnnaaMalai Hill stands as an everlasting evidence as to who Shri Sadaa Shivaa is , why He manifested as a hill !!!!!!!!!!!!

Adhvagat
14 January 2011, 10:13 AM
Please let me know in ISKCON scale how much percentage(%) Sada-shiva, Rudra, Rudra-Siva, Sambhu etc are....

This is hilarious:Roll:

It's one thing to disagree with ISKCON's views that you consider offensive and it's another to turn philosophical disagreements which are bound to exist between philosophical schools into mocking material.

You may be under maya (according to your status) but at least act like you're not for politeness sake.

Otherwise you're just fighting what you consider tamasic with more tamas... I'm not sure I can agree with that.

Om Tat Sat

anatman
14 January 2011, 11:11 AM
It's one thing to disagree with ISKCON's views that you consider offensive and it's another to turn philosophical disagreements which are bound to exist between philosophical schools into mocking material.

You may be under maya (according to your status) but at least act like you're not for politeness sake.

Otherwise you're just fighting what you consider tamasic with more tamas... I'm not sure I can agree with that.

Yes, I am under Maya... sorry for been rude.

But, its just too much to handle.:o

Believer
14 January 2011, 12:53 PM
As per their charter, their lineage and their strict interpretation of Bhagwad Gita, ISKCON has no alternative but to consider Krishna as the supreme personality of Godhead. Where else would they express their views and conduct frank discussions except in the ISKCON sub-forum. Having said that, it behooves the Vaishanavas to not indulge in belittling other Acharyas/Gurus/sages and for the non-Vaishnavas to steer clear of this sub-forum. The 'parrots on steroids' keep repeating the unfortunate negative things said by Prabhupad, without being mindful of the hurt they cause, and the non-Vaishnavas keep reading the hurtful comments and keep stewing in the insults. Please people, ISKCONites be more positive; seek spirituality instead of being trained as ace mud slingers. And non-Vaishnavas, please quit visiting their sub-forum to face hurtful things that 'parrots' repeat when they don't feel like doing 'japa' instead. Calling each other maya driven tamasics will not solve anything. It appears that the venom from the saagar-manthan has not stopped. It is for you, the good folks of this forum, to take the challenge of ending this mutual hostility. Both sides should stick to their sub-forums in praising their respective Acharyas, worship their Ishat devtas and religious symbols/places of pilgrimage, without being negative about the other. Is it that difficult for people who profess to be on a spiritual path? Does taking of sanyas and wrapping yourselves in saffron robes, without a change of heart make you a better person than a lowly householder like me? Be someone that I can look up to for spiritual upliftment. Shivaites and Vaishanvites and Universalists, please be honest to yourselves and be my role models, not my objects of scorn. Rise above the muck and be worthy of the tilak or vibhuti that you so proudly wear on your foreheads!

Jai Shri ShivaKrishnaRama-Vishnu-Brahma
-

Yogkriya
14 January 2011, 02:03 PM
Good post by Believer!!

Namaskar!

Iskcon has a compulsion or disease to repeat preaching of what Prabhupada ever said, without the need to finding its authenticity. At times Prabhupada did say things that may not be exactly true. The crowd around in his room would take everything literally and then go all out over it. Besides the insults to all others, Srila Prabhupad did do a great job and was a sincere Krsna bhakta. Or in Iskcon terminology - A "pure devotee". Now the insults from Iskcon to other people can only stop if they contradict their founder acharya which is as good as contradicting Guru leading to bad 'Vaishnava aparadha' that can have very serious spiritual consequences for them. So no body really dares. In a similar manner Prabhupada felt the compulsion to preach these doctrines because his Guru Bhakti SiddhantSaraswati Thakur repeated them because he learnt it from his own Guru and father BhaktiVinod Thakur and who in turn learnt from his Guru and so on.
Somewhere the doctrines were formed. Deviating from the original doctrines of Vedic Sanatana Dharma. I really appreciate the Guru parampara and keeping full respect of it the followers are bound to just repeat and preach.

Iskcon is essentially a preaching organization who's aim is to preach the holy name of Krsna and bhakti philosophy but strictly in line with their own sect's parampara that they really believe to be coming down from none other than Lord Krsna. err... Lord Brahma - since its called Brahma-Madhava-Gaudiya Sampradaya. Is it coming from Lord Brahma? - Not really. Why? Because Brahma had different idea about Lord Shiva. He worshipfully addresses Lord Shiva in Bhagwatam as - " O supreme lord Śiva, I know that you are the controller of the entire material manifestation, the combination father and mother of the cosmic manifestation, and the Supreme Brahman beyond the cosmic manifestation as well. I know you in that way" ( srimad Bhagavatam 4:6:42 )
"

What does Iskcon propagates about Lord Shiva? - Shiva is a "demi-God". Shiva grants material wealth, that too with consent from Krsna, Shiva cannot give liberation, Shiva is in control of Tamo Guna and represents it, hasn't got all the divine potencies etc..." So we see a bunch of Gaudiya monks contradict Lord Brahma and formulate their own doctrines. In this case, the lineage cannot be strictly claimed to be coming from Lord Brahma. Coming from Krsna? Lord Shiva is known as MAHESHWARA and MAHADEV. See what Lord Krishna says to Arjuna about Lord SHIVA in Bhagvad Gita:
upadrastanumanta ca
bharta bhokta mahesvarah
paramatmeti capy ukto
dehe 'smin purusah parah (Bhagavad Gita 13:23)
"Yet in this body there is another, a transcendental enjoyer who is MAHESHWARA, the supreme proprietor, who exists as the overseer and permitter, and who is known as Paramatma,the Supreme soul of universe".

HK also propagate around the world that Shiva is a demi God and only people of lower intelligence worship Demi gods. So my question is were Rama, Krsna, Vishnu, Vamandev, Vashishtha, Janak, Dasharatha, Sita, Kunti, Gandhari, Atri, Pulatsya, Kapil, Vishvamitra, Agastya, Upamanyu, Valmiki, Vyasa, Adi Shankara, Mahaavtar Baba, Kanappa, Thirumular, Shri hanumanji, Arjuna, Pandavas, the gopis, Nandbaba and so on... of low intelligence that they worshipped Lord of the Lords - Shiva??? Certainly not.

So it doesn't seem to be coming directly from Lord Krishna either! This much is evident. Now who is it coming from? From Gauranga - Chaitanya Mahaprabhu? Partly yes. Because Shri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu (Vishvambhar Mishra) who got initiated by an advaita guru himself didn't really write much. His teachings in Shishtashtakam are a short collection. Vidhyabhushan, the Goswamis and other followers gradually added up more writings moulding and certainly modifying the teachings of Chaitanya along way.
Of course Chaitanya knew that after his going, changes are bound to come. He also knew that people fight over differences. So he left behind one important and good advice for his followers telling them - "in this age of quarrel and hypocrisy, the only means of deliverance is chanting holy names of the Lord and there is no other way.."
Indeed. What other way? Yoga needs authentic bonafide Gurus. And there were none around as Shri Chaitanya could see after him that his followers could turn to. So he left them a comparatively easier way. Most Hindu Sanatana sadhnas have mantra sadhna as part of the curriculum. Nothing different. Sankirtana - kirtan is part of the Hindu pantheon too.

To be hones, I don't see anything wrong happening except the careless insults and put downs and later on twisting of philosophy that took place in the Gaudiya (Iskcon) camp towards all others. Over glorification of own lineage and Acharyas and put down of any other saints and lineages has been one bad ass trait that got unfortunately embedded within the Gaud system.

The Gaudiyas are unique in their own right. They don't really mesh in with the Madhavacharya or any other Vaishnava lineages. They manufactured their own and all this came up in the last 400 years. Apparently the present day doctrines came up in the last 200-250 years. Even though Bhagwatam, Gita and few other texts are considered basic scriptures, yet they are accepted only if they are interpreted as per the Gaudiya/Iskcon mood. Otherwise not. As if no one else knows sanskrit or able to interpret. Rest of the Vedas and Vedic literature is left aside, just as rest of the Vedic sages and their teachings are not touched really.

So, why do the Gaudiyas / Iskconites call themselves as Vedic? This question has a multiple explanations as per them that I wouldn't go into now. One of them being that Vedic may sound more weighty than a 300 year old sub sampradaya. In principle, inquiring about life, nature, realizing self and relationship with God is basis for spiritual life in any of the sampradayas within the Hindu Sanatana Dharma.
I'm saying the word "Hindu" because that is the modern name for Sanatana Dharma and no it was not given by any invading persians or Arabians as many modern day faulty historians claim. Srila Prabhupada also preached the same faulty version about the word Hindu. I can write an explanation about it later if asked. But for now Iskcon followers are not ready to listen to any contradictions on what he said about Hindu word or anything else.

To make the long story short, Iskcon/other Gaudiyas is doing wonderful job by singing dancing, chanting holy names.
Just stop preaching about Lord Shiva, Shankaracharya, Advaita as Mayavad impersonalism and hurling abuses on other lineages, saints (like fools rascals, demoniac etc.), calling Yogis practicing Kundalini, Dhyan, Karma yog as "materialists" etc. and it will be appreciated much more.

Nor Hari nor Shiva can tolerate belittling each other's name by any one's followers. Remember this. If Iskcon/Prabhupad thought by demoting Hinduism, all other sampradayas, calling abusive names to other saints will get it high and respectful and successful, then its a short success, material success and can't be lasting. Result of this aparadha? Guru scandals, sex, money laundering, drugs, now million dollar lawsuits, jealousies of Gaudiya math etc. etc.... eventually weakened Iskcon and ruined it in America and rest of the world. Karma follows dear devotees. There are tons of other yoga lineages that don't believe in taking such cheap shots.
So, I request people to not commit offensive. God gives through various channels in various ways. After all stick to your core practice of "chant and be happy" :))

Hare Krsna!! Namah Shivaya!
Om tat sat!

Yogkriya

grames
22 January 2011, 01:49 AM
Dear Believer,

Your advice and wish to be healthy and positive is adorable and i do echo and repeat million times the same words and wishes. I find the root cause of these problems are because we ought to believe so strongly that what we know regardless of how deep and how much we know the truth, our faith is the ULTIMATE and there is no need for any further "questioning" on that. This whole thread and i would even say, the entire "forum" attitude is mostly of this nature.

Let me take this thread example....

There are so many assumptions of YogKriya which is the cause of this whole unfortunate war of words and responses. I have asked some questions, raised some objections but they are not answered or ignored purposefully to accomplish the same old "dirty" mission of "Proving" my view is correct and since your view does not align with my view, i will throw my discomfort in many ways. Howz that? In fact, such assertions are not unhealthy if they have substance and proper root in our shastra ( Authentic ones).

In fact the view of Gaudiya Vaishnava and the general Vaishava, is not "same" from the perspective of just learning or reading. With out knowing any in depth details of the "vaishnava" system, it is illogical debate and it is even more unfortunate that we force our understanding of Vaishnavaism as the "philosophy and culture of Vaishanva" and start blaming them as "insulting" and "Non civilized" etc.

Only a humble reader with real open mind will go back and read first 15 to 20 posts of this thread and understand the few facts of Vaishnava View on Shiva.

Some of them i repeat are...

1. Lord Krishna is the Ultimate Bhagavan and this is His ultimate Personal Form.
2. His SvaMsa are non-different from Him
3. Siva, Sada-Shiva and Rudra are different expansions... they are not same and Sada-Shiva and Siva being His own SvaMsha and Rudra being the Jiva (vBinnaAmsa)
4. For a ISKCONite, developing the BhavaDeha realization is the Goal so his sadhana is not exactly same as other vaishnavas or remotely resembling the practice of other sectors. In fact, some of the SriVaishnavas and Pushti Marg vaishnavas do follow the practice of developing the "Bhava" as the ultimate means and goal
5. Finally, Shiva is not a proper noun,,, NarayaNA is... Rudra is not a proper Noun..Vishnu itself is not a proper Noun. This has no shaivam, vaishnavaism glamourous interpretation or Advaitam or dvaitam stand point.

And my questions are....

1. Whether a vaishnava pray to Lord Krshna alone or not, how does it matter to a Non-Sectarian believer and how such believer consider or even take it as a subject for argument/debate, insisting on "everything" is same or "Shiva" is supreme?
2. Why such objector does not show the proof that, Lord Shiva "ALONE" is supreme?
3. Sattva, Raja and Tamas are accepted by all the vedantic schools and also their association with everything that is material. So, our mind is material and it will allow us to enjoy the same subject in three different tastes viz. sattva, raja and tamasmic. What "truth" makes you refute this understanding and thus.. classifying the puranas and sections as having the above three understandings?
4. What is your purpose of doing all these??


It is a pity that we take things so personal when a simple ISKCONite Acharya used the words which were used so many times by the same scripture we believe in. No one feels any shame when they read "Mooda Mathe" because it is in :Plural: and applies only to everyone else but not ME. Oh such smart intellectual, you are never been a Mooda or you do have a more civil word other than "rascal". Enrich your dictionaries with more soft and sattvic words for "ignorance" with persistence.


avajananti mam mudha
manusim tanum asritam
param bhavam ajananto
mama bhuta-mahesvaram -- BG 9.11



Hare Krsha!
All glories to you...
You are the Vishnu among Aadityas
You are the Indra among Gods ( demi Gods? Devatas?)
You are the Shankara among Rudra
You are the Skanda among Generals
You are the Gayatri among meters
You are the VasuDeva among Vrsnis


But oh My dear Krshna, you have no right to be the be begining, middle and end as well as top of everything because i have friends who believes there is something else above you. So, i do not know what you have said here in this verse

atha va bahunaitena
kim jnatena tavarjuna
vistabhyaham idam krtsnam
ekamsena sthito jagat Bg 10.42

giridhar
22 January 2011, 02:51 AM
Dear Believer,


There are so many assumptions of YogKriya which is the cause of this whole unfortunate war of words and responses. I have asked some questions, raised some objections but they are not answered or ignored purposefully to accomplish the same old "dirty" mission of "Proving" my view is correct and since your view does not align with my view, i will throw my discomfort in many ways. Howz that? In fact, such assertions are not unhealthy if they have substance and proper root in our shastra ( Authentic ones).

In fact the view of Gaudiya Vaishnava and the general Vaishava, is not "same" from the perspective of just learning or reading.


1. Lord Krishna is the Ultimate Bhagavan and this is His ultimate Personal Form.
2. His SvaMsa are non-different from Him
3. Siva, Sada-Shiva and Rudra are different expansions... they are not same and Sada-Shiva and Siva being His own SvaMsha and Rudra being the Jiva (vBinnaAmsa)
4. For a ISKCONite, developing the BhavaDeha realization is the Goal so his sadhana is not exactly same as other vaishnavas or remotely resembling the practice of other sectors. In fact, some of the SriVaishnavas and Pushti Marg vaishnavas do follow the practice of developing the "Bhava" as the ultimate means and goal
5. Finally, Shiva is not a proper noun,,, NarayaNA is... Rudra is not a proper Noun..Vishnu itself is not a proper Noun. This has no shaivam, vaishnavaism glamourous interpretation or Advaitam or dvaitam stand point.




Grames fails to note that what yogkriya posted are not his assumptions but direct quotes - that too from the ONLY FAULTLESS PURANA so dear to Gaudiyas - SHRIMAD BHAGAVATAM .. THAT LORD SHIVA is the supreme cause..

In Shri Aurobindo's ashram too, there were many vaishnavas (many of them Gaudiya, ofcourse from bengal !! ) whom He advised not to get TOO much attached to the form of Shri Krsna, which was a hindrance to realize the absolute truth.. Ofocurse, truth , for Gaudiyas , stops at Shri Krsna , that too of the Gopeeshvara - why ?

because their acharyas say so. & the acharyas have also issued a diktat that ONLY Bhagavatam is faultless. SO, dont read others..

visit : http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/spiritual-discussions/39480-why-lord-shiva-coolest-dude-2.html#post1055628


also: http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/spiritual-discussions/39480-why-lord-shiva-coolest-dude-2.html#post1055628 - for the complete thread..

People , who are students of a book, will be always closed to new truths, for they will again quote shastras to say truth cannot be new..

That means, Shri Aurobindo was a fool trying for DIVINISATION OF MATTER - BODY.. PHEW !! This phrase must be a blasphemy , for matter is always decaying - it can NEVER CHANGE..

THE MOTHER DID INDEED SHUN such people from Her Ashram..

Spirituality is not just about sticking to one or two books. It is not just about leaving the world for Parama Purusha. "Going back to Godhead" should ultimately be in the cells of the body.

"BODY is not to be shunned..." - Tirumoolar.

But to understand these 'new' truths seen only in remote parts of Rik Veda ("ONLY careful reading can reveal these lines" - Shri Aurobindo) ,

we need people who are OPEN-MINDED ( this openminded-ness is MUCH MORE THAN MERE TOLERANCE OF OTHER FAITHS ) , people who are not students of books & MERELY ACHARYAS .....

Again, Yogkriya & myself have only been against Gaudiya for "calling others PASANDIs, atheists, ONLY demons & ghosts praying to Lord Shiva, assuming propriety on Sanantan Dharma - vedic culture " stuff, that too inspite of so many flaws & weaknesses ; flaws & weaknesses because ,

In the end, spiritual science is ever evolving, much more dynamic than physical sciences..

"I look to the new world where we would be Gods, MATTER would be TRULY DIVINE .... This cannot be achieved by merely sticking to the world - leaving religions...." - THE MOTHER.

"Vaishnavism is a new religion that overly stresses on leaving the world for the Purusha. I always wanted to do a yoga that would not be world shunning but would envelope matter in its path...."

" Only when i realized that the body is NOT A stumbling block at all to yoga, did i succeed in immortalizing this sheath by union with Shri Shiva..." - TIRU MOOLAR

The above three are NOT 'VEDIC-SHASTRIC' Quotes. So i may not have a locus standi in front of Gaudiyas/Vaishnavas ( either of them ) ..

" But future is not controlled by past but by how OPEN you are to spiritual truths at the present" - THE MOTHER

Jai Maha Kaali !!

grames
22 January 2011, 03:08 AM
See, just one more prejudiced prediction. I so far did not deny much of what YogaKriya has said but i was asking him to justify his understandings and accusations alone.

By accusing back that Vaishnava are behaving bad in the same bad manners, you are not different from them is my only assertion. If you are getting carried away by few terms which are in fact justifiable but not derogatory, taking it as derogatory is just the symptom of where you stand in the spiritual progress.

If you quest is Shaivaism, no one stop you ! No Vaishnava should stop others and that is the first Vaishnava Tenet. Not following makes them ineligible to be called or considered a Vaishnava.

giridhar
22 January 2011, 04:15 AM
See, just one more prejudiced prediction. I so far did not deny much of what YogaKriya has said but i was asking him to justify his understandings and accusations alone.

By accusing back that Vaishnava are behaving bad in the same bad manners, you are not different from them is my only assertion.

Your earlier post:

********************************************************

Originally Posted by grames
Dear Believer,


There are so many assumptions of YogKriya which is the cause of this whole unfortunate war of words and responses. I have asked some questions, raised some objections but they are not answered or ignored purposefully to accomplish the same old "dirty" mission of "Proving" my view is correct and since your view does not align with my view, i will throw my discomfort in many ways. Howz that? In fact, such assertions are not unhealthy if they have substance and proper root in our shastra ( Authentic ones).

********************************************************

My post was not to hurt anyone at all. Also, Im not 'following' any path - shaivism or vaishnavism. Then why should i point out vaishnava flaws & rejoice by hurting them ?

Pls read carefully ur line : SO MANY ASSUMPTIONS of yogkriya & they being the cause of this war...

I protest only this. Yogkriya has said the truth - dats all im saying. My previous post only corroborates the truth he said.

Regarding "authentic shastric quotes" :

The purport of what i said in my previous post abt shastric & non-shastric quotes is this :

The absolute truth is beyond any shastras. This is neither to deny Shastras, disrespect them nor to disobey them. The living experience of sages - modern or ancient - are more important , simply because spiritual science ( synonym with EVOLUTION ) IS dynamic..

Dear Grames bhraata, you dont seem to have read this portion carefully.

Seen in THIS light, all i say is that gaudiya vaishnava cannot assume they are the only true sampradaya etc etc, after selectively quoting Shastras...

I was talking abt looking beyond Shastras.. Dear Grames, you are talking abt authentic quotes from Shastras.

I am afraid , even in the topic of authentic quotes from shastras,

Gaudiya vaishnava deny the living words of Shri Krsna, Garga,Vyaasa , Jaigeeshavya , Tandee , Upamanyu (guru of Shri Krsna) etc etc etc have said about Lord Shiva...

Then what about going beyond the Shastras for the One, whom Shastras describe in negative terms, out of fear of insult ???

I stop here because, discussions cannot be held with people who close their eyes & ears..

Everything will be put to rest when Shri Kalki, on the advice of His Guru - Shri Parashurama, will propitiate the blue throated one to DEFEAT SRI LANKAN BUDDHISTS first !!!

Jai Maha Kaali !!

- "When everything fails the Surya Vanshis - the people of Lord Raam, all allies betray, all hopes dash, all friends turn foe, from beyond the snow clad mountains, will come the blue throated one of matted hair - "The Immortals of Meluha"

grames
08 February 2011, 02:51 AM
Dear Gridhar,

It is not a discussion of who is better etc. I would be delighted to indulge in debate, arguments over who is Supreme as per Shastra and the whole contention here is not about that topic. Read few messages above this one and i have very clearly asked for a separate discussion on such topics. I am lodging complaints or throwing accuse cos they are not respected or honored and repeatedly throwing distasteful verdicts on some Acharyas with out any subject or knowledge on the subject they have taught is useless.



My post was not to hurt anyone at all. Also, Im not 'following' any path - shaivism or vaishnavism. Then why should i point out vaishnava flaws & rejoice by hurting them ?
What are u trying then? For a non-sectarian, there should not be any discomfort or agitation when it comes to the topic of WHO IS SUPREME. Not acknowledging this is like self-abuse or hypocrisy. You say one but believe in something else.


I protest only this. Yogkriya has said the truth - dats all im saying.
I am glad YogKRiya has one more support for his ideals but looking at your previous statements and this statement, i would like to ask you, what kind of TRUTH he has said? Is it Absolute Truth, or the TRUTH that you are convinced with? For two vedantins to accept something as truth, Shastra is one of the most important Pramana and especially when it is about anything "Absolute", Shastras are the ONLY pramana. Try to understand this first before making more statements. If sages also followed shastras, how can you have a different practice by ignoring what they have followed? You cannot claim i am sincere follower of those sages but i have my own methods.

So, first come forward and put the topic that you want to discuss so that you and i and everyone else who read these messages will have some take away for them. Just beating the bush, ranting with hatred comments, accusing personalities with out substance are all signs of someone who is as useless as a husk.

Are you trying to Prove Lord Shiva is supreme? Then start a new topic and prove that before abusing anyone else... or other systems. To prove Lord Shiva as supreme,

1. Establish Lord Shiva is Supreme
2. No one else including Krishna, Vishnu etc are on par with Lord Shiva
3. Give proper explanations, meaning to shastra where Lord Vishnu is claimed as Supreme with out compromising the position of Lord Shiva as Supreme
4. Most importantly, establish that Lord Shiva is a personality with a FORM and NO FORM complex. ( With out these, considering any comparison itself is useless idea.)
5. If you cannot do all of the above, but believe that one aspect of the above can be done using Linga Purana, Shiva Gita etc. please understand that you are propagating only partial knowledge.

And most importantly, leave aside your personal belief or faith and they count as nothing in such discussion.

Thanks

devotee
08 February 2011, 06:35 AM
Dear Yogkriya, Grames and Girdhar,

You all must be very tired of this attacks and defense exercise. So, while you may prepare for further attacks and defenses, I would like to you tell you something interesting :

1. In the eastern part of India, Sonepur, Bihar there is a temple dedicated to Lord Harihar. He is half Hari (Lord Vishnu/Krishna) and half Shiva. Though rare, the temples of Harihar is found in some other parts of India too (e.g. Udaypur in Rajasthan).

Which part of Harihar is more important the Hari side (Vishnu part) or the Har (Shiva) side ?

2. Lord Ayappa (in South India) is considered the Supreme Godhead & He has elements of Both Shiva and Vishnu. Which element should be considered superior to the other ?

3. In Elephanta caves, Lord Shiva's most famous Trimurti shows Lord Shiva as Creator (Brahma), Sustainer (Vishnu) and Destroyer all together. Why so ?

4. Tulsidas was one of the most ardent Vaishnavas, a devotee of Lord Rama. He wrote Rudrashtakam & there he addresses Lord Shiva as :

NirvaaNrupam i.e. being like NirvaaNa itself, Brahman, Vedaswarupam (He is the Vedas himself), Niraakar (who is without form), Omkaar, Moolam (Root of all), Turiyam (the fourth state of Self), Chidaakaash (The mass of consciousness) etc. etc.

The same adjectives are used for Vishnu too. Then who is greater than who ?




http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_OrPiYD1RcAs/S_eGQAACqmI/AAAAAAAAF4E/wlWsKqW9P-I/s200/harihara-hindu-god.jpg (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_OrPiYD1RcAs/S_eGQAACqmI/AAAAAAAAF4E/wlWsKqW9P-I/s1600/harihara-hindu-god.jpg)http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_OrPiYD1RcAs/TOHyc8kTbRI/AAAAAAAAGco/ZePQvzemWXs/s200/harihar-vishnu-shiva.jpg

OM

grames
08 February 2011, 06:58 AM
Dear Devotee,

It is very beautiful to note down all your points. The topic that is elaborated in this thread is in fact, NOT THE SUPREMACY and the current state of this message thread is in fact not at all inline with the original topic. So, i would request Satay to remove a lot of arguments (after mesg #36) starting from YogKriya and the responses and leave this thread at Gaudiya's perspective of Lord Shiva as is.

devotee
08 February 2011, 10:57 AM
Yes, I also requested Satay to ask people to respect people's faith even if that is against their beliefs at least in the sections which are clearly marked for them. This section is exclusively for ISKCON's related issues ... so here everyone should respect their beliefs.

Moreover, though I have objection to their (ISKCONites') way of abusing people who don't accept their interpretation of the Shastras but there is nothing wrong if they consider Lord Krishna the Supreme Godhead even at the cost of other forms of God e.g. Lord Shiva. This is because this sect believes in the supremacy of Lord Vishnu and there is scriptural support for this belief. It is another matter that the Shaivites too have equally strong support for considering Lord Shiva as the Supreme Godhead. Both the paths are valid and will lead to the Ultimate Truth ... or has anyone doubts over this ? Again, if you have to consider one form of God as Supreme Godhead then Supreme can be only one ... no ?

Lord Hanumaan was not fully satisfied when he met Lord Krishna until Lord Krishna changed his form & appeared in the form of Lord Rama in front of him. That is an example of strong attachment to form & name of Lord to a devotee. When Hanumaan could not be free from this attachment ... how can the lesser mortals be ... & why should they ? Will it not create confusion in their mind ??

OM

Krsna Das
08 February 2011, 11:53 AM
Hare Krsna !

Dandavat Pranamas to all the Vaishnavas, and to the one who is foremost amongst all the Vaishnavas (Vaishvananam-Yatha-Sambhuh) !

So I just happened to pass by this website and I see this thread has turned into a hodge-podge. It nowehere gives an idea about my intention of starting it.

Dear Grames,

How are you? How is your bhajan going on?

Do you have account on facebook, if so please let me know. I want to discuss Purush-Suktam with you.

I reiterate the Gaudiya Vaishnava Sidhhanta with respect to Lord Siva:

1. He has two forms - Rudra and Sada-Siva

2. Rudra is Deva-tattva: For him it is said that he is the foremost devotee of Bhagwan (Vaishvananam-Yatha-Sambhuh - Srimad Bhagwatam), but at the same time he is non-different from Visnu (an example of curd and milk is given w.r.t this in Brahma Samhita). His position is called avicintya (unthinkable).

3. Sada-Siva is non-different from Lord Visnu. Therefore, he is called Hari-Hara by Vashnavas.

4. Krsna Bhakti cannot be attained without the devotion to Lord Siva, for he is greatest of all Vaishnavas. Therfore, devotion to Lord Siva and Krsna go hand in hand. However, at the same time, devotee remains fixed on one-pointed devotion on his own upasya-tattva or his ista-deva, which is Krsna in this case.

Daso'asmi
Krsna das

grames
16 February 2011, 11:33 AM
Dear Prabhu,

I am really sorry and i haven't noticed this mesg from you. No i do not use the facebook and you can reach me at my email which is there in this profile.

Hare Krshna

grames
16 February 2011, 11:37 AM
Dear Devotee,

It is not sectarian and vaishnavaism or shaivaism are not sectarian but religion on its own. ISKCON alone is not Vaishnava so what you are talking is about at least four major sampradayas and its followers.

Hanuman was not attached to any form btw, and he always knows his Bagavan and not sure where from you got this story where hanuman is attached to His form. Lets discuss that in separate thread if you are interested.

charlebs
06 April 2011, 05:27 AM
Please accept my humble obesiances !

All glories to SriSri Radha Krsna !

Correct. It is for this reason I had included the words "Gaudiya Vaisnava Perspective" otherwise we would have half of the world fighting for Krsna and other half for Siva.

My understanding is that a person who does not have faith in Lord Siva is even lowest that an asura, leave alone him being a Vaisnava.

Hari Bol !
true. my first love was lord shiva. not because he cares about the ignorent and tries to teach them in his own way. but seeing shiva as satan is a big sin. Shiva controls us as the mind of god, whereas krishna is usually completely neutral as he is enlightened emotion.

a true vaishnava also accepts shiva as the eternal god coming forth from the beginning of the first action.
who would say that the nothing that realised itself not immediately developed will when encountered by lonelyness. out of lonelyness he created fear and out of fear he immediately created the nightmare he experienced for eternity.
but although brahma's creation is not finished yet, we can assume that GOD is already happy with our development and the way vishnu and shiva arrange our world.

brahma jijnasa
05 January 2013, 06:05 PM
2. Rudra is Deva-tattva: For him it is said that he is the foremost devotee of Bhagwan (Vaishvananam-Yatha-Sambhuh - Srimad Bhagwatam), but at the same time he is non-different from Visnu (an example of curd and milk is given w.r.t this in Brahma Samhita). His position is called avicintya (unthinkable).



There is a famous verse of Bhāgavatam 12.13.16:

vaiṣṇavānāḿ yathā śambhuḥ

"Lord Śambhu [Śiva] is the greatest of Vaiṣṇavas"

It seems this primarily refers to the Lord Sadasiva who is Vishnu tattva form and not to a demigod Shiva who is not Vishnu tattva.

regards

brahma jijnasa
05 January 2013, 08:22 PM
Please let me know in ISKCON scale how much percentage(%) Sada-shiva, Rudra, Rudra-Siva, Sambhu etc are....



Gaudiya Vaishnavas say that only Lord Krishna has 100% qualities of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, whereas other forms of Lord Vishnu have some part of these 100%.
Sometimes opponents say that this can not be because:


God is infinity and it cannot be limited to 58%, 82% etc... 58% of infinity?

It is not unusual that scriptures sometimes use numbers to describe a point in connection with the Lord.
It is mentioned in the Rig Veda Mandala 10, Hymn 90:

"3. So mighty is his greatness; yea, greater than this is Purusa.
All creatures are one-fourth of him, three-fourths eternal life in heaven."

These numbers can be integers, fractions, percentages or some other.

It is quite reasonable to hold that all forms of the Lord do not show all the qualities.
For example, nowhere in the scriptures we have seen mentioned that Lord Narayana is dancing with the gopis. On the other hand, only Lord Krishna is dancing with the gopis. Can you just imagine some of the forms of the Lord as Kurma (Turtle) or Varaha (Boar) dancing with the gopis? :)
It is quite reasonable to expect that this feature of the Lord "who dances with the gopis" will not be present in all forms of the Lord.

regards

brahma jijnasa
06 January 2013, 12:32 AM
Lord Shiva is talked of as Self effulgent and thus He is not jyoti of any other Source God. He is also called as inconceivable but also creator of this world, including forms and names of the Trimurti. I believe that the trimurti: BrahmA, Vishnu, and Mahendra are the highest Jivas controlling this material existence (one may argue as to who among them is Supreme, but I find it futile because I understand that the Self, the highest above the highest, is actually inconceivable)


As far as I know Gaudiya Vaishnavas explained that there are at least two different forms of Lord Shiva. One of them is Lord Vishnu himself, called Lord Sadasiva, He is Vishnu tattva, while the other Shiva is not Vishnu but is one of the three gods amongst Brahma Vishnu Shiva.
That Lord Shiva who is not Lord Vishnu is often called "a demigod" in the writings of the Gaudiya Vaishnavas.


He is also called as inconceivable but also creator of this world, including forms and names of the Trimurti.

Even from the standpoint of the Gaudiya Vaishnavas it can be said that Lord Shiva, who is actually Lord Sadasiva, assumes the three forms of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva in order to create, maintain and destroy material universe. Various personal forms of Lord Vishnu, Vishnu tattva forms, are all personally Lord Vishnu such as Narayana, Rama, Krishna, Sankarsana, Nrisimha, Varaha, etc., so also is Sadasiva one of these forms.

But it can not be said that the shape and the name of the Lord Vishnu have been created!
That is because the form and name of the Lord Vishnu are nondifferent from his self. The Lord can create material forms and names. However, the form and name of the Lord Vishnu are not material but are described in the scriptures as cit existence and as such they exist as eternal Brahman.
Thus we can say that the Lord has made material forms and names of demigods Brahma and Shiva but not of Vishnu who is eternal Supreme Brahman with its shape and name that are exactly this eternal Supreme Brahman.


I believe that the trimurti: BrahmA, Vishnu, and Mahendra are the highest Jivas controlling this material existence (one may argue as to who among them is Supreme, but I find it futile because I understand that the Self, the highest above the highest, is actually inconceivable)

Brahma is a jiva as well as other demigods like Indra are also jivas, but Lord Vishnu is not a jiva, He is Supreme tattva, Supreme Lord or Vishnu tattva. Thus amongst the gods only Lord Vishnu is the Supreme. Jivas or Jiva tattva category are subordinate to Lord Vishnu or Vishnu tattva.
Thus we can say that the gods Brahma Shiva Agni Indra Varuna etc, often called as "demigods" in Gaudiya Vaishnava writings, are all subordinate to Lord Vishnu.


regards

Omkara
06 January 2013, 06:02 AM
It is mentioned in the Rig Veda Mandala 10, Hymn 90:

"3. So mighty is his greatness; yea, greater than this is Purusa.
All creatures are one-fourth of him, three-fourths eternal life in heaven."

These numbers can be integers, fractions, percentages or some other.



As far as I know, this line is interpreted by Vaishnavas as a reference to the Chatur Vyuha. Others take it as a reference to the 4 padas of the Mandukya Upanishad. Brahman is partless.

Omkara
06 January 2013, 06:07 AM
Gaudiya Vaishnavas say that only Lord Krishna has 100% qualities of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, whereas other forms of Lord Vishnu have some part of these 100%.

It is quite reasonable to hold that all forms of the Lord do not show all the qualities.
For example, nowhere in the scriptures we have seen mentioned that Lord Narayana is dancing with the gopis. On the other hand, only Lord Krishna is dancing with the gopis. Can you just imagine some of the forms of the Lord as Kurma (Turtle) or Varaha (Boar) dancing with the gopis? :)
It is quite reasonable to expect that this feature of the Lord "who dances with the gopis" will not be present in all forms of the Lord.



Similarly Lord Matsya's qualities of having gills and fins and Lord Varaha's qualities of having tusks and fur are not there in Lord Krishna. So your argument falls flat.

Omkara
06 January 2013, 08:49 AM
As far as I know Gaudiya Vaishnavas explained that there are at least two different forms of Lord Shiva. One of them is Lord Vishnu himself, called Lord Sadasiva, He is Vishnu tattva, while the other Shiva is not Vishnu but is one of the three gods amongst Brahma Vishnu Shiva.
That Lord Shiva who is not Lord Vishnu is often called "a demigod" in the writings of the Gaudiya Vaishnavas.



Is a similar differentiation accepted by other Vaishnavas also?

philosoraptor
06 January 2013, 11:00 AM
Yes, I also requested Satay to ask people to respect people's faith even if that is against their beliefs at least in the sections which are clearly marked for them. This section is exclusively for ISKCON's related issues ... so here everyone should respect their beliefs.

Moreover, though I have objection to their (ISKCONites') way of abusing people who don't accept their interpretation of the Shastras but there is nothing wrong if they consider Lord Krishna the Supreme Godhead even at the cost of other forms of God e.g. Lord Shiva.

Asking that other Hindus be made to respect you and then accusing them of "abusing people who don't accept their interpretation" is pretty hypocritical.

It would really be a boon for all members of this forum, if some individuals stopped imparting impure motives to those with whom they have sectarian disagreements, and stopped demanding the deletion of well-argued, contrary opinions.


Similarly Lord Matsya's qualities of having gills and fins and Lord Varaha's qualities of having tusks and fur are not there in Lord Krishna. So your argument falls flat.

I would tend to agree with this. It seems more logical to me to assume that it is the puruSha described in the Upanishads, who is equated with nArAyaNa and who has countless arms/heads/legs to be that original form of the Lord who expresses all the divine qualities, while forms like Rama or Krishna merely conceal many of these qualities in order to receive the devotees' worship. Note that this does NOT imply that avatAras like Rama or Krishna are somehow less than Brahman. On the contrary, the identification of Sri Krishna with that puruSha in the 11th chapter of the gItA is significant, for it shows that He indeed maintains His supremacy even when He conceals His glories and merely appears as a humble charioteer. He is always the all-knowing, all-pervading, all-powerful Lord, even if He does not put his infinite glories on display at any given time.

brahma jijnasa
06 January 2013, 11:36 AM
As far as I know, this line is interpreted by Vaishnavas as a reference to the Chatur Vyuha. Others take it as a reference to the 4 padas of the Mandukya Upanishad. Brahman is partless.

The only reason why I mentioned that verse from Rig Veda is to show how numbers can be used to describe some point in connection with the Lord.
This is because some believe that the Lord can not be described by using numbers since He is unlimited.
If the infinitude of the Lord is reason why He can not be described by using numbers, then it would not be possible even to say "Lord Krishna has 2 hands" or "Lord Narayana has 4 hands". But this is not so because scriptures describe the Lord using numbers.

brahma jijnasa
06 January 2013, 12:29 PM
Similarly Lord Matsya's qualities of having gills and fins and Lord Varaha's qualities of having tusks and fur are not there in Lord Krishna. So your argument falls flat.

First of all I want to say that in post # 127 I did not even tried to prove that all the qualities of the Lord are present in the Lord Krishna, but only that all forms of the Lord do not show all the qualities. Some forms of the Lord will never manifest some of the qualities that exist in the Lord!

Thus we understand that some forms of the Lord manifest less than 100% qualities of the Lord.
Actually if you ask Gaudiya Vaishnavas, all forms of the Lord that are not Lord Krishna manifest less than 100% qualities of the Lord. Only Lord Krishna manifested 100% qualities of the Lord!!!



regards

brahma jijnasa
06 January 2013, 12:47 PM
Is a similar differentiation accepted by other Vaishnavas also?

It seems that all the Vaishnava sampradayas recognize Lord Shiva who is not Lord Vishnu.
Do they recognize Lord Shiva who is Lord Vishnu i.e. Lord Sadasiva, I do not know.


regards

Gaurapriya
06 January 2013, 02:11 PM
Is a similar differentiation accepted by other Vaishnavas also?

Yes, all Vaishnavas from all denominations. Swaminarayanis differ a little by seeing Shiva on par with Lord Vishnu, but all other Vaishnavas (Sri, Nimbarkis, Madhvis, Pushtimargis, etc.) accept and embraced Vishnu-tattva as proper worship; that is, Vishnu/Krishna is the Supreme Lord.

Lord Shiva is a special creation, because he is a guna-avatara, or form of the Lord in the modes of material nature. Some Vaishnavas see Lord Shiva as a heightened jiva, and other Vaishnavas see him as guna-avatara, such as Gaudiya Vaishnavas. All who follow our religion will see Lord Shiva as vaishnavanam yatha shambhuh, or the best Vaishnava, devotee of Lord Vishnu/Krishna.

Gaurapriya
06 January 2013, 02:50 PM
Similarly Lord Matsya's qualities of having gills and fins and Lord Varaha's qualities of having tusks and fur are not there in Lord Krishna. So your argument falls flat.

In all my attempts of humbleness and humility, I feel that the reason why many Vaishnavas (Gaudiyas, Pushtimargis, Swaminarayanis, Nimbarkis, etc.) elevate Sri Krishna to be 'higher' than Sri Vishnu (and this is only in taste, not in essence, as both Sri Krishna and Sriman Narayana are considered one and the same) is because of rasa-tattva. With Krishna, one's rasa expands through Krishna-lila because of the different levels and moods of one's relationship, or taste, towards Sri Bhagavan.

While Sriman Narayana sits in His throne in this mood of aishvarya (opulence, royalty), the rasa of Sri Krishna is that of madhurya, of sweetness and attraction. Each participant in the Play of the Lord enact this sweetness in different ways, such as parentally (Yashodamayi and Nanda Maharaj), amicably (through the gopas and sakhas, such as Sudama, Shridama, Subala, etc.), conjugally (through the sakhis and gopis), in servitude (such as Uddhava or Akrura), or through neutrality (in His Lila, even the grass and the mountains are touched by His lotus feet, and are brimming with His shakti). Such variegatedness in Krishna-lila is more variegated than that of Lord Vishnu, and even moreso because the inhabitants of this divine Vraja do not experience God as Supreme, but God as one's lover, friend, child, playmate, etc.

In Vaishnava Dharma, God's role becomes ultimately magnified through His lilas, and so while Vaishnavas may humbly bow before the Lord in His form as Lord Vishnu, those who feel more inclined to experience the sweet ecstasy of prema-bhakti have done so through Krishna as svarupa.

I hope that helps. Vaishnavism may not be your taste, but for us, it is how we see how Beloved God is to us, and how we are all beloved to Him. :)

Haribol!

Gaurapriya
06 January 2013, 02:57 PM
I would tend to agree with this. It seems more logical to me to assume that it is the puruSha described in the Upanishads, who is equated with nArAyaNa and who has countless arms/heads/legs to be that original form of the Lord who expresses all the divine qualities, while forms like Rama or Krishna merely conceal many of these qualities in order to receive the devotees' worship. Note that this does NOT imply that avatAras like Rama or Krishna are somehow less than Brahman. On the contrary, the identification of Sri Krishna with that puruSha in the 11th chapter of the gItA is significant, for it shows that He indeed maintains His supremacy even when He conceals His glories and merely appears as a humble charioteer. He is always the all-knowing, all-pervading, all-powerful Lord, even if He does not put his infinite glories on display at any given time.

In my perspective, Vaishnavites have argued over the supremacy of which form of the same God is best, and I have always found it slightly moot. Both agree that they are the one and the same Supreme God of this entire cosmic manifestation. Sri Vaishnavas will see Krishna as 'purna-avatara' or full-fledged incarnation of Sri Vishnu, because He, although God in full manifested form on earth, exemplifies in absolute perfection the qualities of Lord Narayana.

I know that Ramanandis, just as many Vaishnavas have elevated Sri Krishna as the Divine Form, have elevated Sri Ramachandra as Supreme, above even both forms of Krishna and Narayana!

In any case, there is only One Principle, Sri Krishna-Vishnu-Rama, the One God of us all, and devotees can use that time to develop their love for their God instead of finely elucidating why any form of the self-same Vishnu-tattva is supreme! You must forgive us, prabhu! :p

Hare Krishna!

grames
06 January 2013, 03:19 PM
Very nice responses!

Supreme is One and He is Krshna, Vishnu and Narayana and all His avatars are not different from each other! Vishnu-Tattva is the most easiest of the rest of the complex Tattvas unless otherwise properly guided by a Baghavada!

Hare Krshna!

Omkara
06 January 2013, 08:25 PM
Yes, all Vaishnavas from all denominations. Swaminarayanis differ a little by seeing Shiva on par with Lord Vishnu, but all other Vaishnavas (Sri, Nimbarkis, Madhvis, Pushtimargis, etc.) accept and embraced Vishnu-tattva as proper worship; that is, Vishnu/Krishna is the Supreme Lord.

Lord Shiva is a special creation, because he is a guna-avatara, or form of the Lord in the modes of material nature. Some Vaishnavas see Lord Shiva as a heightened jiva, and other Vaishnavas see him as guna-avatara, such as Gaudiya Vaishnavas. All who follow our religion will see Lord Shiva as vaishnavanam yatha shambhuh, or the best Vaishnava, devotee of Lord Vishnu/Krishna.

My question was whether other Vaishnava groups accept that there are two forms of Lord Shiva. I was curious because some Shaivite groups similarly differentiate Sadashiva and Rudra.

philosoraptor
06 January 2013, 09:49 PM
Actually if you ask Gaudiya Vaishnavas, all forms of the Lord that are not Lord Krishna manifest less than 100% qualities of the Lord. Only Lord Krishna manifested 100% qualities of the Lord!!!

However, that is the point of contention. Anyone can see that, for a form that manifests 100% of the qualities, there are numerous qualities not manifest. These include the qualities of multiple arms, multiple heads, a fish's body, a lion's head, a turtle's body, etc. Therefore, it is not a logical claim to make. Nor is such a thing ever stated in shruti, at least, not the ones that are extant.


[COLOR="Indigo"]In my perspective, Vaishnavites have argued over the supremacy of which form of the same God is best, and I have always found it slightly moot. Both agree that they are the one and the same Supreme God of this entire cosmic manifestation. Sri Vaishnavas will see Krishna as 'purna-avatara' or full-fledged incarnation of Sri Vishnu, because He, although God in full manifested form on earth, exemplifies in absolute perfection the qualities of Lord Narayana.

No, I am afraid you are quite mistaken. Other Vaishnava Vedanta schools don't argue over the supremacy of specific forms, because All forms of the Lord are the same Supreme Lord, and He is glorious regardless of what form He takes to interact with His devotee. It is only within ISKCON and other non-Vedantic sects in which this "argument" over the relative "supremacy" of one form over another takes place. No claim to the effect that Sri Krishna manifests 100% of the qualities, or is in some sense the bhagavAn Himself in contrast to His other forms like His form residing on kShIra-sAgara, is offered in shruti. The vedas mention the puruSha with countless heads, arms, and feet and equates Him with "nArAyaNa." Thus, the most conservative understanding is that "nArAyaNa" refers to the Godhead in toto, to the Supreme Brahman Himself, and not merely to a specific transcendental form which He takes.


My question was whether other Vaishnava groups accept that there are two forms of Lord Shiva. I was curious because some Shaivite groups similarly differentiate Sadashiva and Rudra.

As far as I know, Gaudiya Vaishnavas make this distinction. Possibly some other North Indian schools may as well, but I have yet to hear of it coming up in my Vaishnava Vedanta readings.

regards,

Gaurapriya
06 January 2013, 10:48 PM
However, that is the point of contention. Anyone can see that, for a form that manifests 100% of the qualities, there are numerous qualities not manifest. These include the qualities of multiple arms, multiple heads, a fish's body, a lion's head, a turtle's body, etc. Therefore, it is not a logical claim to make. Nor is such a thing ever stated in shruti, at least, not the ones that are extant.

That may have been an extension of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakur, and not necessarily from ISKCON. Nevertheless I do agree that such a statement is not found in shastra. I may even speculate that such a claim may come from Gaudiya Scriptures, and thus only specialised towards Chaitanyaites. Shastra such as their own Brahma-Samhita of obscure origin (founded by Sri Chaitanya as a chapter of the Kurma Purana, if it ever did exist), and the reverence of Srimad Bhagavatam will give such devotees creedence of the stance of Krishna.

Nevertheless it still does not make a difference, as Vishnu-tattva would still be considered superior to even Lord Shiva, and this is not an ISKCON-only consideration, but shared by many non-Gaudiyas.


No, I am afraid you are quite mistaken. Other Vaishnava Vedanta schools don't argue over the supremacy of specific forms, because All forms of the Lord are the same Supreme Lord, and He is glorious regardless of what form He takes to interact with His devotee. It is only within ISKCON and other non-Vedantic sects in which this "argument" over the relative "supremacy" of one form over another takes place. No claim to the effect that Sri Krishna manifests 100% of the qualities, or is in some sense the bhagavAn Himself in contrast to His other forms like His form residing on kShIra-sAgara, is offered in shruti. The vedas mention the puruSha with countless heads, arms, and feet and equates Him with "nArAyaNa." Thus, the most conservative understanding is that "nArAyaNa" refers to the Godhead in toto, to the Supreme Brahman Himself, and not merely to a specific transcendental form which He takes.

I agree that Scripturally, both Narayana and Krishna are considered one and the same, but what I am trying to convey is that sectarian differences probably arise in taste and bhakti, rather than in any true shastric manner. After all, Srila Prabhupada's Gita As It Is has many statements saying that one can worship Vishnu and still receive the same benefit as Krishna.

Groups like Gaudiya Vaishnavism and Pushtimarg do argue of the Supremacy of Krishna, but I feel that this 'argument' is more of a philosophical refinery, rather than that of, let's say, the arguments between Shaivites and Vaishnavites.

Nitai Gaur Haribol!

Omkara
06 January 2013, 10:57 PM
Nevertheless it still does not make a difference, as Vishnu-tattva would still be considered superior to even Lord Shiva, and this is not an ISKCON-only consideration, but shared by many non-Gaudiyas.



But nobody else makes absurd statements to the effect that Shiva has 84% of Krishna's attributes, Brahma has 75% and Vishnu has 94%. Such statements should not be made without shastra pramana. Also, since all theistic vedantins agree that Brahman has infinite attributes, it is stupid to say that any other being has a certain percentage of Brahman's attributes. Any other being will only have a finite number of attributes, both qualitatively and quantitatively infinitesmial when compared to Brahman.

ShivaFan
06 January 2013, 11:12 PM
Namaste
Devotion is a prerequisite for realization, this is what Saiva Satgurus say. I am a Saiva. Truthfully, I am always giving my heart and love to any Hindu, to aspirants and devotees. As a Saiva, I am taught that Shiva is the Mahadeva, the Great Deva. He is not a “minor deity” nor less than Vishnu. Because I understand the importance of devotion, that is why I do not engage in the waste of time, for example, trying to state “your Deva” is a “material manifestation” or a “minor deity”. I will proclaim the glories of Mahadeva, and the Great Goddess Parvati. And as a Saiva Siddhanta practitioner, I relish in hearing the devotion of the adherents and aspirants of all Sampradayas and the joy and love when the devotees of their Guru’s word proclaim the glories of their beloved Lord, be it Vishnu (of course Narayana famed in the Vedas), or what is called Avatars such as Krishna. In fact, those who know me know how much I have and will continue to defend the devotees of Vishnu (and of course Narayana famed in the Upanishads), of Krishna, and of course my own beloved Lord Rama of the Solar Dynasty.

I am a devotee of Rama, Who is a devotee of Lord Shiva, and there are so many examples of how we are all intertwined in our journey we sometimes call Hinduism.

I look forward to hearing your lilas and your rasas, your experiences and your acclaim for your Lord or Lords. It is better to do that, than to look at someone else’s Great Lord and live in a world of ideas that in the end will only anger their own Lord or perhaps sway gunas of a jiva soul to become lost in a sort of an identity that hurts one’s own progress.

As a Saiva, we think that to attain the permission to perform yoga, we seek the grace of Lord Ganesha and in my case I turn to Lord Murugan. Many Vaishnava’s are unaware of the vast and authorized Bhakti movement among the devotees of Muruga. He is the God of Kundalini, and of almost electric yogic practices. He unfolds many things that have happened, are happening, and will happen even within the Chakras of our subtle body. It is like a fire, this Shakti. I also love my Great Mother, the Goddess Parvati. Without the “fire” perhaps I may be sitting in meditation for a 1,008 years, but it is the Devas and Devi who control the “fire” and help all Saiva’s or anyone for that matter, so much and we are so grateful. It is very often that a devotee of Mahadeva sees in vision the feet or form of Lord Shiva, and even the “mind” of Shiva called Satchidananda. This is Ishwara Pujana.

For the Saiva, it can be said that a Satguru is Sadashiva.

I have a personal relationship with Lord Rama. In that, we can always be friends.

Om Namah Sivaya

Necromancer
07 January 2013, 12:37 AM
Hare Krishna.

Where to start?

Coming into ISKCON was a bit of a 'reverse culture shock' after having witnessed the mesh of animism with ancient Shaiva sects throughout South-East Asia. My beliefs were more tied in to the raw cosmic power of Maha Rudra and Lord Nataraja.

I joined ISKCON anyway (due to the lack of anything else 'Hindu' around) and I was glad I did. I thought Lord Vishnu was a manifestation of Lord Shiva anyway (and vice-versa applies). I just wanted my knowledge to be a little bit more 'esoteric' than that. It was what I was used to after all (and what I am getting back into just now).

I always got a bit annoyed when the Devotees would denounce Lord Shiva as only being a 'Yogi', nothing more. He's the Master Yogi!

I let it slide because I was in a Vaishnav temple after all and enjoying the Leelas of Lork Krishna and chanting the Maha Mantra (and eating Prasadam).

I think Sridi Sai Baba put it best: "Sabka Malik Ek". There is only one God (or none if you are a Vedantist, like me). Whom you choose as your Ishwar Devata is personal.

Having said that, I have been busy spending the past few days studying the life and works of Sri Ramanuja and comparing it to Adi Shankaracharya.

To understand this from a Shaiva perspective, one needs to go deeply into Visishtadvaita philosophy (which I have been doing).

Oh, I find a link somewhere for everybody else to be on the same page here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramanuja#Visishtadvaita_philosophy

It's very interesting to read these things.

Aum Namah Shivaya

grames
07 January 2013, 02:23 AM
However, that is the point of contention. Anyone can see that, for a form that manifests 100% of the qualities, there are numerous qualities not manifest.

This is the source of confusion even with in some Gaudiyas and ISKCONites. Krshna is not "manifesting" at all in His this special Avatara and this is the fantastic sublime point in the Bhagavatam that He descends as Himself ( Not even as an avatara - or manifestation ). Also, SrimadAcharya's tattava must be remembered here that, There is No difference between any of the Form of the Lord and all the Forms of the Lord are equal and capable of all that He has. So, where is the question of "Difference"? For Gaudiyas and ISKCON, it is not the "Substance" of the Form but the "engagement" or the expression or even in more authentic words, THE RASA! RASA Tattava is based on the concept of involving two and the First one of the two principles in this relationship is Fully Perfect Guna Purna Vishnu Tattva descending in the form of Lord Krshna ( or Lord Krshna Himself - Remember, His forms are always existing - not created and then destroyed!) and this is the reason ISKCON or Gaudiya literature all over the place emphasis the "SvyamBhagavan" pointer for Lord Krshna alone! The difference or perceptional difference is possible on the other side, ie with the devotee whether the devotee is engaged in the mellow relationship with Lord or in some other progressive relationship! But, the Rasa itself ( the expressional engagement with Lord) is completed by the Lord by His own svaRupa in the form of Lord Krshna for 'all' possibilities and this is the very same reason all the alwars Sing the Love of Lord Krshna as Ultimate!

The mellow of Lord Krshna is the most sublime of all and the head of Alwars is the personified form of this mellow, our dear NamAlwar! ( Krshna Trshna Tattva).

Does that mean, Lord Vishnu or Lord Narayana are different from Lord Krshna! The actual answer is, NO for any vaishnava follower! There is not even a Rupa Bedha in first place to begin with! ( This subject must go to Uttara. In simple sentence, we know that His hand is not different from His legs, His eyes can eat, mouth can walk, hands can smell etc. and His rupas are also non-different - Vishesa as per Sri madAcharya)

So, this is not logical from the point of substance classification or qualification but from the perspective of the "practitioner" who is willingly engaging with the Lord in the divine eternal relationship! ( All the Saranagadas do not experience same relationship with Lord - though the relationship is progressive - until the Atma realizes its StreeBhava and engages with Lord Krshna (alone) in the Madhrya). So, here the Supremacy is not a Tattava grading one Form of Lord from Other but for the Purna Sambanda for the Jiva desiring that and it is only the Lord Krshna form that fulfills it.

This is very much Vaishnava principle and all the Vaishnava Sampradayas have this as part of their practice as well.

Hare Krshna!

brahma jijnasa
07 January 2013, 09:08 AM
But nobody else makes absurd statements to the effect that Shiva has 84% of Krishna's attributes, Brahma has 75% and Vishnu has 94%. Such statements should not be made without shastra pramana.

Remember this thread Re: LORd SIVA : A Gaudiya Vaisnava Perspective started as an offshoot of thread LORd SIVA : A Gaudiya Vaisnava Perspective ( http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=5055 ) which was not intended for discussion. Discussion is reserved for this thread.

It seems that these percentages come from the analysis of sastric statements. This is done in the Gaudiya Vaishnava sampradaya.
However, this analysis has the deficiency that it is not substantiated by scriptural statements.


regards

brahma jijnasa
07 January 2013, 10:22 AM
Shastra such as their own Brahma-Samhita of obscure origin (founded by Sri Chaitanya as a chapter of the Kurma Purana, if it ever did exist)


It seems that the Brahma Samhita is one ancient pancaratra scripture that almost became lost. However that did not happen because it was discovered by Sri Chaitanya on his way through Southern India.
He found the one remaining copy of the text that was supposedly in a very bad condition and only one chapter has been preserved. That is chapter number 5.
This text has nothing to do with Kurma Purana.


regards

philosoraptor
07 January 2013, 11:03 AM
This is the source of confusion even with in some Gaudiyas and ISKCONites. Krshna is not "manifesting" at all in His this special Avatara and this is the fantastic sublime point in the Bhagavatam that He descends as Himself ( Not even as an avatara - or manifestation ).

Pranams,

Whenever the Lord comes, He comes "as Himself," unless He is merely sending an empowered jIva. Even when He sends an empowered jIva, He still dwells within the jIva as the antaryamin/paramAtmA.

I understand that you are alluding to verse 1.3.28 of the bhAgvatam and arguing that Krishna is "svayam bhagavAn" while other forms of His like rAma, narasimha, etc are in some sense not "bhagvAn svayam." But even accepting this interpretation, which is debatable, how do you reconcile it with the vedAntic view of the Lord having infinite qualities? Are you saying that Krishna-avatAra displays all of those infinite transcendental qualities even though we can clearly see many qualities not present? Or are you saying that He has those qualities but does not display/manifest them?

grames
07 January 2013, 12:25 PM
Dear Philosoraptor.,

If you are interested in the concept of "Rupa" and understanding the Bhagavan's Rupa(s), then the point i made will be clear. I stand corrected on the first point and svaRupa or svaAmsa avatara of Lord is always Lord Himself!

But why P P. says this...

nrsimha-rama-krsnesu
sad-gunya-paripuranam

Does it mean, other avataras of Him are not Paripurna? Hurried answer is NO. Why do we call this avataras as "svaAmsa" avatara? What is this "Amsa" here? Part of the whole or whole part of the whole or Whole itself? Amsa cannot mean Whole! Vasudeva is partless, Brahman is partless but where does this "amsa" fits into? What meaning you can drive? Why list three avatara and call them as PariPurna of SadGunyam? What about Vamana, Koorma? Are they not Lord's?

For a guideline, assume or believe or try to see Rupa as the Transcendantal quality itself! We still need the possessor who is a PERSON and cannot make distinction between Him and His qualities! This is the most complex beast in the Vishnu-Tattva and that PERSON who posses all of these is what that "Svyam Bhagavan" ( any other interpretation to this is in fact, more debatable and disagreeable as it goes against the vaishnava faith that, God has no difference and assuming svaRupa Beda for Lord is devesha! When every Avatara of Him is His svayam, there is no need to mention it specifically if there is no special designation. 'ete' groups all - to distinguish the undistinguishable for some reason - That is Rasa Tattva)

Even more reasons in the same line is, Lord does not assume any of these Rupa and they are all existing eternally! How can we understand this when Lord and His attributes must not be having any difference?

aho bhāgyam aho bhāgyaḿ
nanda-gopa-vrajaukasām
yan-mitraḿ paramānandaḿ
pūrṇaḿ brahma sanātanam 10.14.32 SB

"Purnam" is mentioned again denoting both Krshna and Balarama at Nandagopa's house. Interesting isin't?

asyāḿ vai śrūyamāṇāyāḿ
kṛṣṇe parama-pūruṣe
bhaktir utpadyate puḿsaḥ
śoka-moha-bhayāpahā 1.7.7 SB

Krsne Parama-puruse - No more doubt Krshna is the parama-purusa! And how this Krshna is described or guided in to...

bhakti-yogena manasi
samyak praṇihite 'male
apaśyat puruṣaḿ pūrṇaḿ
māyāḿ ca tad-apāśrayam 1.7.4 SB

As "purusam purnam".

By all the conventions, in the learnt assembly, a mere utterance of the Word Purusa is sufficient to denote Lord but here Suta adds, Purnam ( The Complete or Absolute) to make this special distinction ( again, its not Suta who is actually repeating the words of Suka who actually passes this information from Lord Himself, Vyasa)

Let me stop here! My point is, this is not different in other Vaishnava practice as well! Some are explicit and in some it is hidden or kept as Raghasya or secret.

brahma jijnasa
07 January 2013, 12:56 PM
Actually if you ask Gaudiya Vaishnavas, all forms of the Lord that are not Lord Krishna manifest less than 100% qualities of the Lord. Only Lord Krishna manifested 100% qualities of the Lord!!!

However, that is the point of contention. Anyone can see that, for a form that manifests 100% of the qualities, there are numerous qualities not manifest. These include the qualities of multiple arms, multiple heads, a fish's body, a lion's head, a turtle's body, etc. Therefore, it is not a logical claim to make. Nor is such a thing ever stated in shruti, at least, not the ones that are extant.



Regarding sruti.
Let's be fair and say that the authority of the scriptures like the Puranas and Itihasas should not be questioned.

Regarding qualities.
Your logic is flawed. Your logic is based on experience, on what you can see. But this is not the logic of the scriptures.

After they have analyzed the scriptures Gaudiya Vaishnavas came to the conclusion that Lord Krishna is the source of all other forms of Lord Vishnu. Lord Krishna is the original Vishnu. He is the original Vishnu tattva. He is purna "complete" while all the other forms are described as his amsa or parts! Lord Krishna is nobody's amsa or part!
Thus Lord Krishna expands Himself into all other forms of Vishnu. This simply means that all forms of Lord Vishnu such as Rama Narayana Sankarsana Nrisimha Kurma Varaha Sadasiva etc are already contained in Him. When we say "contained in Him" that even means "contained within His body".

And now why your logic is wrong.
In the Lord Krishna you can not see "multiple arms, multiple heads, a fish's body, a lion's head, a turtle's body, etc" and therefore you come to the conclusion that all of these qualities or features do not exist in Him. Since all forms of Lord Vishnu are contained within His body He has all these qualities, although they are not visible.


Regarding superiority.

For Gaudiyas and ISKCON, it is not the "Substance" of the Form but the "engagement" or the expression or even in more authentic words, THE RASA!


I agree that Scripturally, both Narayana and Krishna are considered one and the same, but what I am trying to convey is that sectarian differences probably arise in taste and bhakti, rather than in any true shastric manner.

Taking into account what I said above, the superiority of Lord Krishna is not reflected only in rasa but in the fact that He is the source of all qualities and all forms of Lord Vishnu.


regards

philosoraptor
07 January 2013, 12:58 PM
Dear Philosoraptor.,

If you are interested in the concept of "Rupa" and understanding the Bhagavan's Rupa(s), then the point i made will be clear.

Pranams,

Just to be clear, I am familiar with the Gaudiiya commentary on the Bhagavatam and the Nectar of Devotion. I have also read the Krishna-sandarbha in which Sri Jiva Gosvami discusses these things in detail. So, I think I can honestly say I've given a good effort to trying to understand this issue.



But why P P. says this...

nrsimha-rama-krsnesu
sad-gunya-paripuranam

Does it mean, other avataras of Him are not Paripurna? Hurried answer is NO. Why do we call this avataras as "svaAmsa" avatara? What is this "Amsa" here? Part of the whole or whole part of the whole or Whole itself? Amsa cannot mean Whole! Vasudeva is partless, Brahman is partless but where does this "amsa" fits into? What meaning you can drive? Why list three avatara and call them as PariPurna of SadGunyam? What about Vamana, Koorma? Are they not Lord's?

The simplest thing to do would be to provide context for the verse. If this verse is really in padma purANa, then certainly you can provide the verse numbers and I can look it up. It's hard to answer the question without any context in which to place the statement.



For a guideline, assume or believe or try to see Rupa as the Transcendantal quality itself! We still need the possessor who is a PERSON and cannot make distinction between Him and His qualities! This is the most complex beast in the Vishnu-Tattva and that PERSON who posses all of these is what that "Svyam Bhagavan" ( any other interpretation to this is in fact, more debatable and disagreeable as it goes against the vaishnava faith that, God has no difference and assuming svaRupa Beda for Lord is devesha! When every Avatara of Him is His svayam, there is no need to mention it specifically if there is no special designation. 'ete' groups all - to distinguish the undistinguishable for some reason - That is Rasa Tattva)

For the purposes of this discussion, we can accept as given that there exists an inseparable relationship between the Lord and His qualities. However, your argument then seems to be that Krishna is svayam bhagavAn because He posseses all of these qualities, while other forms of nArAyaNa are not svayam bhagavAn and don't. Problem: Krishna does not manifest qualities like lion's head, four arms, and so on. If you say that He merely possesses them but does not express them, then why not argue the same for all other forms of nArAyaNa? Why should it be the case that only Krishna can possess all the qualities? In fact, the vishva-rUpa is a form of the Lord possessing all the qualities, one that was so overwhelming that Arjuna had to request the Lord to return to His form as Krishna. Why say that Krishna only possesses all the qualities and not the puruSha having countless heads/arms/legs, etc?



Even more reasons in the same line is, Lord does not assume any of these Rupa and they are all existing eternally! How can we understand this when Lord and His attributes must not be having any difference?

Lord having eternally existing forms is also not really a point of contention.



aho bhāgyam aho bhāgyaḿ
nanda-gopa-vrajaukasām
yan-mitraḿ paramānandaḿ
pūrṇaḿ brahma sanātanam 10.14.32 SB

"Purnam" is mentioned again denoting both Krshna and Balarama at Nandagopa's house. Interesting isin't?

Not really. Because it does not establish that other forms of the Lord are not pUrNam. In fact: pUrNam adaH pUrNam idam pUrNAt pUrNaM.... the Lord remains complete even when so many complete wholes emanate from Him. It is not that the Lord is pUrNam only in one form and not in others.



asyāḿ vai śrūyamāṇāyāḿ
kṛṣṇe parama-pūruṣe
bhaktir utpadyate puḿsaḥ
śoka-moha-bhayāpahā 1.7.7 SB

Krsne Parama-puruse - No more doubt Krshna is the parama-purusa! And how this Krshna is described or guided in to...

bhakti-yogena manasi
samyak praṇihite 'male
apaśyat puruṣaḿ pūrṇaḿ
māyāḿ ca tad-apāśrayam 1.7.4 SB

As "purusam purnam".

By all the conventions, in the learnt assembly, a mere utterance of the Word Purusa is sufficient to denote Lord but here Suta adds, Purnam ( The Complete or Absolute) to make this special distinction ( again, its not Suta who is actually repeating the words of Suka who actually passes this information from Lord Himself, Vyasa)

Let me stop here! My point is, this is not different in other Vaishnava practice as well! Some are explicit and in some it is hidden or kept as Raghasya or secret.

Again, you are assuming that His being referred to as pUrNam or parama puruSha has additional meanings because of their being spoken to Sri Krishna. But that would assume that Rama, Narasimha, Vaamana, etc are never spoken of as parama puruSha or pUrNam. Were that the case, then you might have a point.

regards,

philosoraptor
07 January 2013, 01:10 PM
Again, you are assuming that His being referred to as pUrNam or parama puruSha has additional meanings because of their being spoken to Sri Krishna. But that would assume that Rama, Narasimha, Vaamana, etc are never spoken of as parama puruSha or pUrNam. Were that the case, then you might have a point.


Just to expand on this point, I wanted to show you references in which the Lord (in forms other than Krishna) is referred to as "pUrNaM" or "parama puruSha" etc

from the story of gajendra mokShaM:

tam akṣaraṁ brahma paraṁ pareśam
 avyaktam ādhyātmika-yoga-gamyam
atīndriyaṁ sūkṣmam ivātidūram
 anantam ādyaṁ paripūrṇam īḍe || bhA 8.3.21 ||


from brahmA's prayers describing the puruSha of the puruSha-sukta:

viśuddhaṁ kevalaṁ jńānaṁ
 pratyak samyag avasthitam
satyaṁ pūrṇam anādy-antaṁ
 nirguṇaṁ nityam advayam || bhA 2.6.40 ||

from svayambhuva manu's prayers to the Lord:

tam īhamānaṁ nirahaṅkṛtaṁ budhaṁ
 nirāśiṣaṁ pūrṇam ananya-coditam
nṝń śikṣayantaṁ nija-vartma-saṁsthitaṁ
 prabhuṁ prapadye ’khila-dharma-bhāvanam || bhA 8.1.16 ||


These are just a few examples to illustrate my doubt - the Lord is certainly referred to as "pUrNam" in a general sense and also when He takes other forms. Thus, it is not clear from an objective reading that Krishna being "pUrNam" should hold any additional significance.


regards,

grames
07 January 2013, 01:19 PM
:)

We are hitting the same point... I say what you say but i say a little more! :)
All forms of Lord are same with no difference! Lets stick to this!
After i said this, i am sounding like i am trying to teach difference... No i am not! Lord Vishnu is Lord Krshna is 100%= Lord's all Avatars! There is no misunderstanding of two Person here! We are talking of Only One! If only we have two, there is a question of talking about difference. This is the reason why i mentioned only "svarupaBeda" ( the point of contention or misunderstanding - Apparent beda arising out of different Rupa of Lord). There is also no room for ranking which Rupa is best or least based on Tattva! They are all equal! It is not even Supremacy of one form over another as they all are of One! But yet, Krshna is special!

But, there are qualifications of when some form appears, when some form acts etc. for Lords forms. Like purusa, kala, pumsa etc. Still, they dont them inferior or superior but functional for specific purpose ONLY! Lord Vishnu does not play flute (but He is as Krshna as the Vishnu-Tattva is venuGopala). The entire message is narrowed to the earlier message that, it is the Form of Lord where the purpose is only one, which is establishment of the eternal relationship of jiva with Lord Krshna ( with Stree Bhava - Madhurya rasa) and in that way, from the perspective of the other partner of love, Lord Krshna is the svyam Bhagavan and He does this play only in this Rupa! Lord Nrashima protects but does not play the leela of Lord Krshna! ( They are not two again and not even Rupa Beda)

Btw, mine is excerpt from Shri Krshna Sandarbha! Much more details are there about this very specific topic why Krshna is special!

grames
07 January 2013, 01:44 PM
Dear Philosoraptor.,

The form that holds everything after the MahaPralaya is the little Krshna on the Banyan leaf!

prāg-uttarasyāḿ śākhāyāḿ
tasyāpi dadṛśe śiśum
śayānaḿ parṇa-puṭake
grasantaḿ prabhayā tamaḥ SB 12.9.21

Creation happens after this! Ultimate destiny is This!

ShivaFan
07 January 2013, 03:10 PM
Namaste

Garga Samhita?

I asked this same question in this same ISKCON form in my Krishna Avatar query, no response yet, but since I am on a lunch break at work, and since this thread has gone into a "ball of string" analysis and debate on "forms" and "avatars" and "they are all one, except one is special" and so on, maybe it all "works" but for that matter the spaghetti of wires running out the back of my server works too, but ... I am wondering, even though I am not going to hold it as the only truth, I am wondering why no one is referencing the Garga Samhita where it is said Lord Shiva while in communion with Parvati asked that this Samhita be recited.

Do the Gaudiyas consider this Samhita valid? I mean, I am not going to be a advert for your ideations which are not what I am taught but if someone is going to argue Krsna is "special" I would think this Garga Samhita would be in their "arsenal" (poor choice of words I know), it goes into this entire form, avatars scenario in detail and is translated as such on this particular discussion:

The following description of the various types of avatars is given in the ancient Garga Samhita.
Text 16 Sri Närada said: In the Smrti-ēästra the great sages who have Vyäsa as their leader explain that the Lord descends in six kinds of forms: 1. amsamsa (a part of a part), 2. amsa (a part), 3. ävesha (entrance into a jiva), 4. kalä (a full part), 5. pürna (full), and 6. paripürnatama (most full).
Text 17 The amsamsa incarnations begin with Marici, the amsä incarnations begin with Brahmä, the kalä incarnations begin with Kapila and Kürmä, and the ävesha incarnations begin with Parashuräma.
Text 18 The Smrti-shästra explains that the pürna incarnations are 1. Nrsimha, 2. Räma, 3. Lord Hari, the ruler of Shvetadvépa, 4. Vaikuntha, 5. Yajna, and 6. Nara-Näräyana.
Text 19 The paripürnatama form of the Lord is Sri Krishna, who is the original Supreme Personality of Godhead Himself. He is the master of countless universes. He is splendidly manifest in the realm of Goloka.
Text 20 The amsa incarnations are said to oversee the execution of the Lord's mission (in the world). The amsämsa incarnations are understood to perform the work of executing those missions.
Text 21 O great soul, O king, please know that in the various äveēa incarnations Lord Vishnu enters (a jiva), executes His mission, and then departs.
Text 22 Millennium after millennium Lord Hari's kalä incarnations teach and establish the principles of religion, and then disappear.
Text 23 The pürna incarnations are said to include the catur-vyüha incarnations. They are said to be the places where heroic powers and the nine rasas are seen.
Text 24 Others say that the form of the Lord where all powers and glories enter is His paripürnatama form, the original form of the Lord Himself.
Text 25 The transcendental qualities people see distributed among the Lord's pürna incarnations are all present in the Lord's original, paripürnatama form.
Text 26 The Lord's original, paripürėatama form is Sri Krishna and no one else. Coming (to this world) to execute one mission, He executes millions of missions.
Text 27 He is perfect and complete. He is the oldest. He is the most exalted of exalted persons. He is greater than the greatest. He is the Supreme Person. He is the master of the exalted. Of He who is full of bliss, who is jewel-mine of mercy, who is a jewel-mine of transcendental virtues, I take shelter.

Om Namah Sivaya

philosoraptor
07 January 2013, 03:12 PM
:)

We are hitting the same point... I say what you say but i say a little more! :)
All forms of Lord are same with no difference! Lets stick to this!
After i said this, i am sounding like i am trying to teach difference... No i am not! Lord Vishnu is Lord Krshna is 100%= Lord's all Avatars! There is no misunderstanding of two Person here! We are talking of Only One! If only we have two, there is a question of talking about difference. This is the reason why i mentioned only "svarupaBeda" ( the point of contention or misunderstanding - Apparent beda arising out of different Rupa of Lord). There is also no room for ranking which Rupa is best or least based on Tattva! They are all equal! It is not even Supremacy of one form over another as they all are of One! But yet, Krshna is special!


Pranams. Very well, let us stipulate that according to Gaudiya Vaishnavism, the Lord is the same regardless of what form He is found in. This is the view of Baladeva Vidyabhushana, your Vedanta Commentator, and I'm pretty sure none of the GV's would take issue with it. We can also stipulate that the Lord has different activities/functions to perform in each avatAra. Now it sounds like you are trying to argue that Krishna's status as svayam bhagavaan is merely a subjective realization based on the mood of the devotee, as you do here:


from the perspective of the other partner of love, Lord Krshna is the svyam Bhagavan and He does this play only in this Rupa!

... which I for one have no problem with. But then, you try to argue otherwise as you do below:



The form that holds everything after the MahaPralaya is the little Krshna on the Banyan leaf!

prāg-uttarasyāḿ śākhāyāḿ
tasyāpi dadṛśe śiśum
śayānaḿ parṇa-puṭake
grasantaḿ prabhayā tamaḥ SB 12.9.21

Creation happens after this! Ultimate destiny is This!

This is one of my favorite stories, by the way. However, I'm not so convinced that it is saying what you are trying to say that it says, viz that the form of the Lord into which everything goes after pralaya is Baby Krishna. Below are the reasons for my doubt:

1) From what I understand of Gaudiya Vaishnavism, it is not just any form of Krishna, but Krishna specifically in the adolescent form in which He sports with the gopis Who is considered the mULa-rUpa (I'm borrowing the term from Maadhvas here but I think the concept is the same). Whereas this form is (presumably) baby Krishna.

2) It actually isn't mentioned anywhere in those shlokas as far as I can see that the infant is Baby Krishna. Clearly, we are meant to understand that He is the Supreme Lord, but with no mention of flute, peacock feather, or other identifying characteristics, how do we know this isn't merely another infant form of the Lord?

3) It is nowhere mentioned in shruti that the form of the Lord into which everything enters and from which everything is projected, is an infant. Not conclusive by itself, granted, but just FYI.

4) The whole episode is not real, if we accept what the Bhaagavatam says. Maarkandeya asks the Lord for the boon of seeing His mAyA "drakṣye māyāṁ yayā lokaḥ sa-pālo veda sad-bhidām" (bhA 12.9.6). After this, he ends up in the waters of universal devastation, finds the one island and beholds the baby (Krishna?) who then inhales him, showing him that the universe is in fact arrayed as it was before as if nothing happened. In verse 12.9.34 it is specifically mentioned that Maarkandeya's ashram is all found just as it was before "svāśrame pūrva-vat sthitaḥ" again reinforcing the view that the episode was not real. This would therefore make it difficult to conclude that the infant form on the banyan leaf is the form of the primeval puruSha spoken of in the Upanishads.

regards,

PR

brahma jijnasa
07 January 2013, 04:22 PM
Namaste

Garga Samhita?

Do the Gaudiyas consider this Samhita valid? I mean, I am not going to be a advert for your ideations which are not what I am taught but if someone is going to argue Krsna is "special" I would think this Garga Samhita would be in their "arsenal" (poor choice of words I know), it goes into this entire form, avatars scenario in detail and is translated as such on this particular discussion:

The following description of the various types of avatars is given in the ancient Garga Samhita.

Text 16 Sri Narada said: In the Smrti-sastra the great sages who have Vyasa as their leader explain that the Lord descends in six kinds of forms: 1. amsamsa (a part of a part), 2. amsa (a part), 3. avesha (entrance into a jiva), 4. kala (a full part), 5. purna (full), and 6. paripurnatama (most full).
... ...
Text 18 The Smrti-shastra explains that the purna incarnations are 1. Nrsimha, 2. Rama, 3. Lord Hari, the ruler of Shvetadvipa, 4. Vaikuntha, 5. Yajna, and 6. Nara-Narayana.
Text 19 The paripurnatama form of the Lord is Sri Krishna, who is the original Supreme Personality of Godhead Himself. He is the master of countless universes. He is splendidly manifest in the realm of Goloka.
... ...
Text 23 The purna incarnations are said to include the catur-vyuha incarnations. They are said to be the places where heroic powers and the nine rasas are seen.
Text 24 Others say that the form of the Lord where all powers and glories enter is His paripurnatama form, the original form of the Lord Himself.
Text 25 The transcendental qualities people see distributed among the Lord's purna incarnations are all present in the Lord's original, paripurnatama form.
Text 26 The Lord's original, paripurnatama form is Sri Krishna and no one else. Coming (to this world) to execute one mission, He executes millions of missions.
Text 27 He is perfect and complete. He is the oldest. He is the most exalted of exalted persons. He is greater than the greatest. He is the Supreme Person. He is the master of the exalted. Of He who is full of bliss, who is jewel-mine of mercy, who is a jewel-mine of transcendental virtues, I take shelter.



ShivaFan thank you very much for this post.

Yes, Gaudiya Vaishnavas accept this Garga Samhita because it is one ancient Pancaratra scripture.

That what has been said up there that I made bold, I have already explained in my previous post where I said that Lord Krishna is the only complete form of the Lord, while all the others are but amsa or His parts.
Lord Krishna is nobody's amsa or part!
All the qualities are present within Him:

Text 25 The transcendental qualities people see distributed among the Lord's purna incarnations are all present in the Lord's original, paripurnatama form.
Text 26 The Lord's original, paripurnatama form is Sri Krishna and no one else.


regards

shiv.somashekhar
07 January 2013, 10:26 PM
Dear Philosoraptor.,

The form that holds everything after the MahaPralaya is the little Krshna on the Banyan leaf!



So, the banyan leaf survived the Maha Pralaya? Or, is it not a real banyan leaf?

Omkara
08 January 2013, 12:54 AM
Regarding sruti.
Let's be fair and say that the authority of the scriptures like the Puranas and Itihasas should not be questioned.

Regarding qualities.
Your logic is flawed. Your logic is based on experience, on what you can see. But this is not the logic of the scriptures.

After they have analyzed the scriptures Gaudiya Vaishnavas came to the conclusion that Lord Krishna is the source of all other forms of Lord Vishnu. Lord Krishna is the original Vishnu. He is the original Vishnu tattva. He is purna "complete" while all the other forms are described as his amsa or parts! Lord Krishna is nobody's amsa or part!
Thus Lord Krishna expands Himself into all other forms of Vishnu. This simply means that all forms of Lord Vishnu such as Rama Narayana Sankarsana Nrisimha Kurma Varaha Sadasiva etc are already contained in Him. When we say "contained in Him" that even means "contained within His body".

And now why your logic is wrong.
In the Lord Krishna you can not see "multiple arms, multiple heads, a fish's body, a lion's head, a turtle's body, etc" and therefore you come to the conclusion that all of these qualities or features do not exist in Him. Since all forms of Lord Vishnu are contained within His body He has all these qualities, although they are not visible.


Regarding superiority.




Taking into account what I said above, the superiority of Lord Krishna is not reflected only in rasa but in the fact that He is the source of all qualities and all forms of Lord Vishnu.


regards

To overrule experiential knowledge, you need scriptural proof, which you have not provided.

Omkara
08 January 2013, 10:58 AM
ShivaFan thank you very much for this post.

Yes, Gaudiya Vaishnavas accept this Garga Samhita because it is one ancient pancaratra scripture.

That what has been said up there that I made bold, I have already explained in my previous post where I said that Lord Krishna is the only complete form of the Lord, while all the others are but amsa or His parts.
Lord Krishna is nobody's amsa or part!
All the qualities are present within Him:

Text 25 The transcendental qualities people see distributed among the Lord's pürna incarnations are all present in the Lord's original, paripürnatama form.
Text 26 The Lord's original, paripürėatama form is Sri Krishna and no one else.


regards

Do other Vaishnavas accept it or is this similar to the Brahma-Samahita?

Viraja
08 January 2013, 11:07 AM
Do other Vaishnavas accept it or is this similar to the Brahma-Samahita?

As a mere Vaishnava (meaning someone who can't quote a scripture for this), I believe many Vaishnavas view Rama as below:

http://www.acharya.org/articles/aditlooa/bhattar/aditlooa-bh-023.html

While Krishna is 'paramatma', Rama is 'paraBrahmam'. He is the avatara that shows the virtue of patience, endurance and adherence to dharma. Krishna might be one of Madhurya but he did not suffer anything like Rama. I trust many Srivaishnavites (the Thenkalai and Vadakalai sects of Tamilnadu) might hold similar opinion.

Although not pointing to any scriptures, I just thank this opportunity to have expressed my feelings for Rama because he is also a 'poornavataram', just as is Sri Narasimha and some posts here seem to suggest only Krishna is.

shiv.somashekhar
08 January 2013, 01:18 PM
As a mere Vaishnava (meaning someone who can't quote a scripture for this), I believe many Vaishnavas view Rama as below:

http://www.acharya.org/articles/aditlooa/bhattar/aditlooa-bh-023.html

While Krishna is 'paramatma', Rama is 'paraBrahmam'. He is the avatara that shows the virtue of patience, endurance and adherence to dharma. Krishna might be one of Madhurya but he did not suffer anything like Rama. I trust many Srivaishnavites (the Thenkalai and Vadakalai sects of Tamilnadu) might hold similar opinion.

Although not pointing to any scriptures, I just thank this opportunity to have expressed my feelings for Rama because he is also a 'poornavataram', just as is Sri Narasimha and some posts here seem to suggest only Krishna is.

The idea of Krishna as a purna-avatar and being the source of Vishnu, is first identified with Jayadeva (12th Century). Since then, the idea has been held onto in some Eastern Indian (Bengal) beliefs such as Gaudiya Vaishnavism.

In contrast, Madhva specifically commented on the controversial Bhagavatam verse (svayam Bhagavan) in line with his position that all avatars are equal.

philosoraptor
08 January 2013, 01:36 PM
Regarding sruti.
Let's be fair and say that the authority of the scriptures like the Puranas and Itihasas should not be questioned.

Puraanas and Itihaasas are not shruti, and their authority depends on not contradicting the viewpoint of shruti. Otherwise, you would have to refrain from questioning shlokas in which Shiva is described as the supreme deity and Vishnu as his devotee, which do exist. I previously quoted from the Devi-Bhagavata Purana showing that Devi is held to be even higher than Shiva, and Shiva higher than even Krishna by that Purana. Would you tell me we should not even question that?



Regarding qualities.
Your logic is flawed. Your logic is based on experience, on what you can see. But this is not the logic of the scriptures.

I haven't offered any logic. It is you who have argued that Krishna is the "source of Vishnu" which contradicts the multiple shruti-pramaanas establishing that He has no origin in anything. I have only pointed out that the form of Krishna having infinite qualities is contrary to the description of Krishna we see in the Puraanas.



After they have analyzed the scriptures Gaudiya Vaishnavas came to the conclusion that Lord Krishna is the source of all other forms of Lord Vishnu. Lord Krishna is the original Vishnu. He is the original Vishnu tattva. He is purna "complete" while all the other forms are described as his amsa or parts! Lord Krishna is nobody's amsa or part!


But this is nowhere stated in the shruti, and other Vaishnava Vedanta traditions have not come to such conclusions despite more extensive analysis of the scriptures, including the shrutis.

philosoraptor
08 January 2013, 01:50 PM
Do other Vaishnavas accept it or is this similar to the Brahma-Samahita?

I have only heard of Garga-Samhita from Gaudiya Vaishnavas.

Also, just FYI, the "Brahma-Samhita" held in high esteem by Gaudiya Vaishnavas is different from the pancharaatra text of the same name. This I am told by an ISKCON devotee converted into Sri Vaishnavism who notes that the subject matter of the latter is completely different.

brahma jijnasa
08 January 2013, 06:48 PM
Puraanas and Itihaasas are not shruti, and their authority depends on not contradicting the viewpoint of shruti. Otherwise, you would have to refrain from questioning shlokas in which Shiva is described as the supreme deity and Vishnu as his devotee, which do exist. I previously quoted from the Devi-Bhagavata Purana showing that Devi is held to be even higher than Shiva, and Shiva higher than even Krishna by that Purana. Would you tell me we should not even question that?

So what you want to say then?
Do the Gaudiyas come to their conclusions on account of tamasic (wrapped in ignorance) statements of Bhagavatam and other scriptures?
Are we supposed to think that the statements of the Bhagavatam and other scriptures used by Gaudiya Vaishnavas are tamasic (wrapped in ignorance) and thus contradictory to srutis?

Those statements "you would have to refrain from" are probably located in scriptures that are proclaimed to be of tamasic and rajasic character. In those scriptures Vedic knowledge is not presented in its purest form, but with some admixture of tamas or ignorance.
However, there are also scriptures that are of sattvic character such as sattvic Puranas or Vaishnava Puranas. Bhagavatam is definitely one of them.



Puraanas and Itihaasas are not shruti, and their authority depends on not contradicting the viewpoint of shruti.

I don't think so.
Their authority is based on the authority of sages!
We should suppose that sages like Vyasadeva and Romaharshana compiled Itihasas Puranas etc as such that they comply with sruti, otherwise those scriptures would be useless.




I haven't offered any logic. It is you who have argued that Krishna is the "source of Vishnu" which contradicts the multiple shruti-pramaanas establishing that He has no origin in anything. I have only pointed out that the form of Krishna having infinite qualities is contrary to the description of Krishna we see in the Puraanas.

I said "Lord Krishna is the source of all other forms of Lord Vishnu."
"Source" not in some material sense, but in the sense that I have already explained.
Since all forms of Lord Vishnu are contained within Lord Krishna's body He has all these qualities, although they are not visible.



But this is nowhere stated in the shruti, and other Vaishnava Vedanta traditions have not come to such conclusions despite more extensive analysis of the scriptures, including the shrutis.

What other Vaishnava Vedanta traditions arrived at is their problem. Gaudiya Vaishnavas do not have this problem. :)

It is well known that srutis do not provide such detailed descriptions of the various forms of the Lord as Puranas and Itihasas do. Many srutis get lost. However it may be that even available srutis contain some indications that Lord Krishna is the most complete form of the Lord. If they do we will have to wait until someone reveal them to us.


regards

philosoraptor
08 January 2013, 07:24 PM
So what you want to say then?
Do the Gaudiyas come to their conclusions on account of tamasic (wrapped in ignorance) statements of Bhagavatam and other scriptures?
Are we supposed to think that the statements of the Bhagavatam and other scriptures used by Gaudiya Vaishnavas are tamasic (wrapped in ignorance) and thus contradictory to srutis?

Pranams.

I'm not sure how to respond to this. That the Bhaagavatam, however well-regarded it may be, is not shruti, is accepted by all vedAntic traditions. That non-shrutis sources are authoritative only to the extent that they are consistent with shruti is also accepted by all vedAntic traditions. This principle is also accepted by your own Sri Jiva Gosvami in his Tattva-Sandarbha.

As far as the statements of the bhAgavatam are concerned, there is no reason to assume that they are "tamasic." The key verse is "ete chAmsha kalAH pumsaH kRiShNas tu bhagvAn svayam" (bhA 1.3.28). That this indicates "Krishna is the source of all other incarnations including Vishnu" is an interpretation, not clearly stated in the verse. In fact, that entire interpretation is based on the assumption that the "all these" refers to all of the avatAras mentioned in this chapter. Another perfectly valid interpretation is to assume that "all these" refers to the manus, RiShis, deva-s, etc mentioned in the shloka immedialy prior. This position is taken by other Vaishnava traditions, with the idea being that it is these jIvAtmas that are the "amshas" while kRiShNa is fully nArAyaNa Himself, svayam bhagavAn in this case meaning the Supreme Lord in a very general sense, as opposed to a specific form of the Supreme Lord, which is itself a bit of a stretch. Now, if the verse is merely proclaiming the divinity of Sri Krishna, then why might one have a doubt about that? I can think of several reasons, not the least of which is that His avatAra was recent vis-a-vis the compiling of the bhAgavatam, His activities were very human-like in the sense of having a guru, maintaining a palace, having a childhood, and so on, and many people at the time also had this doubt, including envious demons like Sishupaala, Jaraasandha, and so on.



Those statements "you would have to refrain from" are probably located in scriptures that are proclaimed to be of tamasic and rajasic character. In those scriptures Vedic knowledge is not presented in its purest form, but with some admixture of tamas or ignorance.

However, there are also scriptures that are of sattvic character such as sattvic Puranas or Vaishnava Puranas. Bhagavatam is definitely one of them.

Unfortunately, this threefold distinction is not as black-and-white as you might think. There are definitely sAttvik gems even in the tamAsic purANas, and there are certainly questionable statements in even sAttvik purANas. The bhAgavatam itself has verses proclaiming the supremacy of Lord Shiva, for example. Again, the Vaishnava standard of epistemology is to accept what is consistent with shruti. The threefold classification of the purANas is itself found in the purANas, and ultimately not even sAttvik purANas are immune to sectarian interpolation.



I don't think so.
Their authority is based on the authority of sages!
We should suppose that sages like Vyasadeva and Romaharshana compiled Itihasas Puranas etc as such that they comply with sruti, otherwise those scriptures would be useless.


Authority in vedAnta is based on apaurusheyatva. Authored scriptures, even those authored by great sages or even God Himself are not apaurusheya.



I said "Lord Krishna is the source of all other forms of Lord Vishnu."
"Source" not in some material sense, but in the sense that I have already explained.

Again, let me reiterate that the shrutis declare that supreme brahman, aka the puruSha with countless heads/arms/legs, aka nArAyNa (these concepts are used synonymously) to have no source, period.



Since all forms of Lord Vishnu are contained within Lord Krishna's body He has all these qualities, although they are not visible.

And let me point out that there is no explicit statement in the bhAgavatam stating that "all forms of Lord Vishnu are contained within Lord Krishna's body."



What other Vaishnava Vedanta traditions arrived at is their problem. Gaudiya Vaishnavas do not have this problem. :)

It is well known that srutis do not provide such detailed descriptions of the various forms of the Lord as Puranas and Itihasas do. Many srutis get lost. However it may be that even available srutis contain some indications that Lord Krishna is the most complete form of the Lord. If they do we will have to wait until someone reveal them to us.


"Maybe" is not proof of anything. It is also well known that even purANas and itihAsas get interpolated over time. There are several different versions of the bhAgavata purANa, and the one used by gauDIyas is not even identical to the one used by mAdhvas, from whom gauDIyas claim disciplic succession. Ultimately, one has to base philosophy on shruti primarily and go to smRiti secondarily. This is the standard for bona fide Vaishnava Vedaanta traditions like that of Madhva and Raamaanuja. It is admittedly not the standard for post-vedaantic traditions like Chaitanya and SwamiNarayan from what I can see.

regards,

brahma jijnasa
09 January 2013, 12:48 AM
Namaste philosoraptor


Regarding authority of scriptures used by Jiva Goswami and other Gaudiya Vaishnava authors.

Some Smriti scripture is authoritative because it is consistent with the sruti. Yes this is so, but that's not my point.
The point is that the author has compiled a scripture so that it is in compliance with sruti. This assumption is fulfilled at least for the Sattvic scriptures.
How did author compiled a scripture?
Bearing in mind what was said in the sruti he compiled a scripture. If this is not so then Vyasadeva and Romaharshana are not authorities at all and the scriptures that they compiled are useless.

Just because today we can not find a statement regarding the status of Lord Krishna in the sruti does not mean that such srutis formerly did not exist.
Just to say "But this is nowhere stated in the shruti" is not good enough. Well enough would only be to give examples from the sruti that directly refute what was said by Smriti scriptures used by Jiva Gosvami.


Regarding Bhāgavatam 1.3.28.


...is an interpretation, not clearly stated in the verse
...that entire interpretation is based on the assumption that...
Another perfectly valid interpretation is...
This position is taken by other Vaishnava traditions...


What is clear to one, may not be clear to another one.
Precisely for the reason to explain this verse Jiva Gosvami wrote Sandarbhas. There he gives many examples in support to this verse. Thus this verse should not be viewed in isolation. Gaudiya Vaishnava siddhanta regarding the status of Lord Krishna is not based on a single verse.
Thus "another perfectly valid interpretations" do not stay "perfectly valid" any more.
If anyone thinks that it is possible to give "another perfectly valid interpretation" then it should be done taking into account all that Jiva Gosvami says, and not only to give supposedly "another perfectly valid interpretation" for this single verse.
I have not seen that someone made anything like that.


regards

Omkara
09 January 2013, 01:10 AM
Regarding authority of scriptures used by Jiva Goswami and other Gaudiya Vaishnava authors.

Some Smriti scripture is authoritative because it is consistent with the sruti. Yes this is so, but that's not my point.
The point is that the author has compiled a scripture so that it is in compliance with sruti. This assumption is fulfilled at least for the Sattvic scriptures.
How did author compiled a scripture?
Bearing in mind what was said in the sruti he compiled a scripture. If this is not so then Vyasadeva and Romaharshana are not authorities at all and the scriptures that they compiled are useless.



So every single word in the 'sattvika' puranas is valid?

How do you explain away the Shiva Gita in the Padma Purana, which has Sri Rama worshipping Shiva(more on this here- http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=1780) , or Mahbharata Ashwamedha Parva 14.379 which gives a detailed description of Krishna taking his Shaivite initiation or Mahabharata Book 13 chapter 15 which has Krishna meditating on Lord Shiva(This stpry is retold in the Shiva Purana). The puranas contradict each other and themselves very often. Thus all sects discard parts which are not in accordance with their interpretation of shruti. In any case, I do not see how this is relevant to the issue at hand.

brahma jijnasa
09 January 2013, 01:46 AM
So every single word in the 'sattvika' puranas is valid?

How do you explain away the Shiva Gita in the Padma Purana, which has Sri Rama worshipping Shiva(more on this here- http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=1780) , or Mahbharata Ashwamedha Parva 14.379 which gives a detailed description of Krishna taking his Shaivite initiation or Mahabharata Book 13 chapter 15 which has Krishna meditating on Lord Shiva(This stpry is retold in the Shiva Purana). The puranas contradict each other and themselves very often. Thus all sects discard parts which are not in accordance with their interpretation of shruti. In any case, I do not see how this is relevant to the issue at hand.

About Padma Purana:
I do not know exactly who is this Shiva. Maybe it's that Shiva who is Vishnu, Lord Sadasiva.

Maybe Mahabharata is not in purest sattva.


regards

brahma jijnasa
09 January 2013, 03:04 AM
The Mahabharata, Book 5: Udyoga Parva: Bhagwat Yana Parva: section CXXXI
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m05/m05131.htm



Vaisampayana said, 'After Vidura had said this, Kesava, that slayer of hostile divisions, endued with great energy, addressed Dhritarashtra's son, Duryodhana, and said, 'From delusion, O Suyodhana, thou regardest
me to be alone, and it is for this, O thou of little understanding, that thou seekest to make me a captive after vanquishing me by violence. Here, however, are all the Pandavas and all the Vrishnis and Andhakas. Here are all the Adityas, the Rudras, and the Vasus, with all the great Rishis. Saying this Kesava, that slayer of hostile heroes burst out into a loud laughter. And as the high-souled Sauri laughed, from his body, that resembled a blazing fire, issued myriads of gods, each of lightning effulgence, and not bigger than the thumb. And on his forehead appeared Brahman, and on his breast Rudra. And on his arms appeared the regents of the world, and from his mouth issued Agni, the Adityas, the Sadhyas, the Vasus, the Aswins, the Marutas, with Indra, and the Viswedevas. And myriads of Yakshas, and the Gandharvas, and Rakshasas also, of the same measure and form, issued thence. And from his two arms issued Sankarshana and Dhananjaya. And Arjuna stood on his right, bow in hand, and Rama stood on his left, armed with the plough.


Many amsas are contained within the body of Lord Krishna. It even mentions that Sankarsana who is Lord Vishnu himself emerged from the body of Lord Krishna.
Lord Krishna clearly says "From delusion, O Suyodhana, thou regardest me to be alone" which means that He is not alone, but they are with Him!

Omkara
09 January 2013, 09:09 AM
First you modify your stated position by saying




Maybe Mahabharata is not in purest sattva.



and then you quote from the Mahabharata. Oh well...:D :D :D

brahma jijnasa
09 January 2013, 09:59 AM
and then you quote from the Mahabharata. Oh well...:D :D :D

Gaudiyas would quote from any scripture, even tamasic ones. In every scripture there are some genuine knowledge.

regards

philosoraptor
09 January 2013, 01:37 PM
Pranams brahma jijnasa,



Regarding authority of scriptures used by Jiva Goswami and other Gaudiya Vaishnava authors.

Some Smriti scripture is authoritative because it is consistent with the sruti. Yes this is so, but that's not my point.

No, that *is* the point. If authority depends on being consistent with shruti, then the smRiti is not independently authoritative. Only shruti is independently authoritative. This has always been the standard in vedAnta.



The point is that the author has compiled a scripture so that it is in compliance with sruti.

Authorship means it is not apaurusheya, and thus is subject to the check of being dependent on the authority of shruti.



This assumption is fulfilled at least for the Sattvic scriptures.


Unfortunately, being sAttvik does not make it immune to interpolation. How you explain the Shaivite verses mentioned by Omkar from the sAttvik purANas and itihAsas? Bear in mind that even rAmAyaNa and mahAbhArata are also considered sAttvik. Are you saying that a sAttvik scripture is 100% authoritative? If not, then how do you decide what is and is not authoritative? The only logical answer is to judge against the authority of shruti.



How did author compiled a scripture?
Bearing in mind what was said in the sruti he compiled a scripture. If this is not so then Vyasadeva and Romaharshana are not authorities at all and the scriptures that they compiled are useless.

This is completely irrelevant. For starters, the details of the purANas' authorship are only known from the authored purANas themselves. We have no independent accounting of their authorship. Secondly, authorship already indicates that they are not apaurusheya, and thus are not on the level of shruti. Third, merely being authored by a great RiShi or God Himself requires additional assumptions that the author is who He says He is, and that He is not attempting to mislead anyone. Take Buddha for example - the bhAgavatam says he is an avatAra (we can stipulate that he is a shaktyAvesha) and that he would "mislead the atheists" (as per the ISKCON translation). So, are buddha's words apaurusheya? Why not? He is God's empowered incarnation, right?



Just because today we can not find a statement regarding the status of Lord Krishna in the sruti does not mean that such srutis formerly did not exist.
Just to say "But this is nowhere stated in the shruti" is not good enough. Well enough would only be to give examples from the sruti that directly refute what was said by Smriti scriptures used by Jiva Gosvami.

The burden of proof is on you to show evidence from shruti for your sect's point of view that Krishna is the source of all other forms of Vishnu. We all know about the shruti evidence describing the thousand-headed puruSha as the origin of everything (see puruSha-sukta, also svetAshvatara upaniShad 6th chapter, also mahAnArAyaNa upaniShad). The latter source specifically names Him as "nArAyaNa" and "hari." In none of these sources do we find a description of the kRiShNa form as the source of everything, what to speak of being the source of the thousand-headed nArAyaNa puruSha.



Regarding Bhāgavatam 1.3.28.


What is clear to one, may not be clear to another one.

Unfortunately, that is nothing more than obfuscation. The whole point of shAstra is to teach us the truth about suprasensory entities like the Lord, Vaikuntha, the jIva, and so on. It makes no sense to suggest that the correct meaning of the shlokas, especially shlokas which were designed to impart Vedic knowledge to non-dvijas, is not their direct meaning but rather an indirect interpretation only to be known from the AchArya. Your own aachaaryas have criticized this standard of intepretation when it was used by Shankaraachaarya and other mayavadis.

This is especially true considering that the Krishna interpretation contradicts other statements in the bhAgavatam indicating that viShNu incarnated as kRiShNa. For example, in bhAgavata 10.1.20-21 it is indicated that the devas went to milk-ocean and prayed to viShNu lying there. Then it is explained that while in prison, the Lord first appeared in a four-armed form (see 10.3.9-10) before later changing to an infant two-armed form, the latter obviously the form of Krishna. When viShNu is being prayed to to come to Earth, and then He appears as viShNu, and only later changes to kRiShNa, this contradicts the idea of "kRiShNa is source of viShNu" when if anything, the latter appears to be the case, viz that kRiShNa is another form of viShNu.



Precisely for the reason to explain this verse Jiva Gosvami wrote Sandarbhas. There he gives many examples in support to this verse. Thus this verse should not be viewed in isolation. Gaudiya Vaishnava siddhanta regarding the status of Lord Krishna is not based on a single verse.

I have read the Sandarbhas years ago, well the first four anyway up to and including Krishna-Sandarbha wherein Jiva Gosvami gives his evidence of Krishna being the Lord Himself. If you had actually read it, you would note, as I have, that the evidence provided by Jiva gosvami in support of his interpretation of bhAgavatam 1.3.28 is very oblique, to say the least. Would you like to delve into some of those verses? Because when I read it, I very much wanted to believe his conclusions, but I was left rather disappointed that the verses he quoted in support of his interpretation, themselves required that you only believed his interpretations.



Thus "another perfectly valid interpretations" do not stay "perfectly valid" any more.
If anyone thinks that it is possible to give "another perfectly valid interpretation" then it should be done taking into account all that Jiva Gosvami says, and not only to give supposedly "another perfectly valid interpretation" for this single verse.
I have not seen that someone made anything like that.


In a nutshell, what you are arguing is that one cannot have a valid interpretation if he disagrees with Jiva Gosvami. That's a bit sectarian, don't you think?

shrI kRiShNArpaNam astu

grames
09 January 2013, 03:16 PM
Dear Philasoraptor.,

Pranams! Gaudiyas belief and philosophy is culmination of all vaishnava thoughts in one sense but coming from different traditions, it is hard to understand. But, some of your messages are trying address posts here but looks like you are getting distracted by some of the not so helpful distractions. Keeping them aside, for the benefit of understanding i am trying to connect the dots i have drawn before.


I said, stick to this first and this cannot be compromised by some choice of words or new interpretations

"Vishnu=Rama=Krishna=100% of all His svyAmsa" avatara. A vaishnava who understood the vaishnava tradition and philosophy has no doubt about this. So, asking question like.,

1. Vishnu becomes Nrashima is meaningless
2. Vishnu is Nrashima but Vishnu is the Origin - That is again meaningless
3. Narayana is the Origin as Shruti says so Narayana is Origin of Vishnu!
4. Nrashima has Lion Face that Vishnu doesn't have - Krshna does not show tiger nails etc.

Sorry for the list but please understand that, these questions are invalid to begin with. Because, the source of confusion and subsequent disagreement on why Krshna is special is in the wrong understanding of the Vishnu-Tattva itself.

Now, i am not "arguing" Krshna is SvyamBhagavan because no other form of Him posses all qualities. I have not made such statement anywhere. I even tried to force you to think and understand the fact that, even the RupaBeda does not exist between Baghavan Forms ( as He has no internal difference - and He is advaitam). How can this various Rupa can then be understood? What is your understanding? Are they Same or Different? If they are same, you cannot see NraShima in different form from Lord Vishnu! They are two forms that we have been told, described and detailed! So, Non-Difference is not an transcendantal concept explained out of no philosophical support? Isin't? How will you still stick to Advaitam with out loosing the reality of at least two forms i/we have stated here?

To put it simple, the substance here is only One! There is no other way to uphold the "Advaitam" and no vaishna tradition disapproves this truth. This is the ideal base on which we happily say, Vishnu is Rama is NraShima etc.

But, now take this Vishnu Saharasa nama - Lord Shiva says, uttering the Name of "Rama" three times is equal to uttering the thousands of names of Lord Vishnu! It is not an unaccepted sloka in the Sri Vaishnava tradition and how are you accepting the difference in pala or equating the name of "Rama" as equal to all 1000 names? Isin't namaBeda? Offense?

Looks something more is still there with out distorting the "Advaitam" for the Lord and such difference is not on the substance or quality of the Lord ( in fact, Lord and His qualities also do not have difference - so why i said, there is not even rupaBeda - also asked to think in this direction of Rupa as Qualities of Him)

VishwaRupa is not the VishwaRupa of Lord Vishnu and it is what is shown to Arjuna by Krshna! Not sure if you call it "Vishnu's VishwaRupa and Vishnu does not show VishwaRupa" and it is only Krshna leela!



Lord having eternally existing forms is also not really a point of contention.

This is the path to the answer! :) Eternally existing forms but for Vaishnavas, Lord is Personal always! So, we are not definiing personality on the basis of possessing innumerable forms! ( God's forms are classified but not the numbers). So, it is not the forms which has new new personalities but the Original one which must have all the innumerable qualities ( including the Rupa's as His qualities - As He enacts a Rupa or Avatara for a particular purpose etc. Purusha avatara is for a Purpose - Here purpose is a Sport in SV, His nature in Dvaita, For the benefit of Jiva in other Vaishnava traditions)

This is the core detailed in the Krshna Sandarpa - The source of all in the sense that, the 'Person' who posses everything, choose to exhibit what He likes and desire, plays leela is in the eternal form of Lord Krshna. ( The banyan leaf leela is not considered un-real and the famous Aaandal or PeriyAlware did not consider VadaPatraSaayi as unreal maya but the actual ParaBrahman Himself - So dont want to go in to more details as a good vaishnava we do not challenge the Poorvacharyas)

Now, the contentions here are....

Are other forms of Lord are Purna or Not! The answer is, since there is no difference between Lord and His Qualities and His Rupa, they MUST be Purna too! But, on a Rasa Level for the benefit of the Jiva, They CHOOSE not to exhibit what Krshna exhibits ( Manifest itself is not a good word - i am very weak in english to pick any right word to describe this). Nrashima is meant to protect His devotee and He is not meant to protect yadu's or play sport with gopikas ( though He can - But for that, He is in the sweetest form of the MaakanChore Krshna who steals all the Pure white butter like hearts). So, do not try to raise a question thinking "Other Forms are not Purnam" as in their constitution or substance but they chose/choose not to exhibit the Poornatva as they appear/manifest for a purpose and accomplish it and remain eternal! (purusa, pumsa, amsa all are in this category) They all are purna! ( This is not a disputed fact by Gaudiyas either - Jiva G clearly distinguishes this with so much of pain in the first few slokas itself). The highest benefit for the Jiva is being part of His play, being subject of His love and this is the reason Gaudiyas also expand the Purusha Arthas with one more, Prema as the utimate goal for Jiva. ( The benefit of undergoing samsara and release stops at Moksha but the eternal duty of the Jiva is no longer the Moksha but the enjoyment of Lord and engaged with Him in the loving service for His pleasure. This two fold post moksha anubava is also there in the SriVaishnavaism - jivan's Moksha for the personal enjoyment with out samsara for the jiva or jivan's Moksha for the only KaimKaryams of the Lord with no tinge of care for his own happiness)

So the point is subtle where non-difference must be kept intact but still the nature of engagement of the Bagavan with His particular Rupa as per His Choice again, for the benefit of the dependent Jiva! All the avatars happens for certain purpose and the One who does all this for the Jiva, or as His sport is remaining in the form of Lord Krshna!

I did try my best and i can only provide link to Krshna Sandarpa (http://krishnascience.info/Vaisnava%20Library/Devotion%20-%20shastras/Goswamis/Jiva%20Gosvami/Sandarbhas/Krsna%20sandarbha/Krsna%20sandarbha%203.htm) as there is nothing else which can answer this in better and clear terms than Jiva's Krshna Sandarpa.

Hare Krshna!

philosoraptor
09 January 2013, 04:32 PM
Dear Philasoraptor.,

Pranams! Gaudiyas belief and philosophy is culmination of all vaishnava thoughts in one sense but coming from different traditions, it is hard to understand. But, some of your messages are trying address posts here but looks like you are getting distracted by some of the not so helpful distractions. Keeping them aside, for the benefit of understanding i am trying to connect the dots i have drawn before.


Namaste. I appreciate as always, anyone's attempts to clarify their position and/or the position of the tradition they represent. If I may make one candid disclosure, I must admit that I am not really "from" any other rival tradition. I consider myself a seeker primarily. Thus, please understand that my doubts are not based on sectarian rivalry or other impure motivations. I am fully prepared to accept an explanation as true when it seems to be the best one that matches the evidence.


"Vishnu=Rama=Krishna=100% of all His svyAmsa" avatara. A vaishnava who understood the vaishnava tradition and philosophy has no doubt about this. So, asking question like.,

1. Vishnu becomes Nrashima is meaningless

Agreed conditionally. The condition, of course, is that from the perspective of an embodied soul, it appears that the Lord "becomes" the avatAra, so naturally we tend to use this language. But technically, I would say He appears as narasimha, appears as rAma, appears as kRiShNa, etc which I think is more correct.



2. Vishnu is Nrashima but Vishnu is the Origin - That is again meaningless


Also agreed, on the basis that things which have an origin are not eternal, and if all forms of the Lord are eternal (my current view), then one form cannot be the "origin" of the other. Now, I recognize that gauDIyas may try to argue that things can have temporal characteristics (origin, dissolution, etc) in a sphere outside of "material time," but we have to understand that, philosophically speaking, kALa means time as we understand it in this world and invoking concepts like "spiritual time" and arguing that things can happen in a certain way in a spiritual realm requires explicit shAstric pramANa, since these are atIndriya concepts by definition.


3. Narayana is the Origin as Shruti says so Narayana is Origin of Vishnu!

Let me clarify my stance on this. My stance is, quite simply, that the shruti does not, I repeat, does NOT make a distinction between nArAyaNa, viShNu, etc. That being said, the name "nArAyaNa" is a proper noun and can only mean nArAyaNa aka brahman aka the parama puruSha described in the shruti with countless arms/heads/legs and infinite qualities. The shruti describes that nArAyaNa as the origin of everything and without origin. Hence, without any further explicit shruti to the effect that this nArAyaNa has His origin in kRiShNa, no one can authoritatively say that.



4. Nrashima has Lion Face that Vishnu doesn't have - Krshna does not show tiger nails etc.

I must partially disagree with this statement. There is a difference between "having" qualities and "displaying qualities." If the Lord is One regardless of the form He takes, then He *Has* all the divine attributes in every form, but depending on the form He takes, He only *displays* some of those attributes. Hence, in the form of viShNu residing on milk ocean He is not described as having flute, while as kRiShNa He does and also has peacock feather. There is no reason viShNu cannot manifest the flute, just as kRiShNa manifested two extra arms to pick up the fainting rukminI, but for whatever reason He generally chooses to display only certain qualities in specific forms.

The exception here appears to be the puruSha with countless limbs as described in shruti - this form appears to be His display all of His infinite qualities simultaneously, which is why Arjuna could not see it without kRiShNa's willing it to be so.



Now, i am not "arguing" Krshna is SvyamBhagavan because no other form of Him posses all qualities. I have not made such statement anywhere. I even tried to force you to think and understand the fact that, even the RupaBeda does not exist between Baghavan Forms ( as He has no internal difference - and He is advaitam). How can this various Rupa can then be understood? What is your understanding? Are they Same or Different? If they are same, you cannot see NraShima in different form from Lord Vishnu! They are two forms that we have been told, described and detailed! So, Non-Difference is not an transcendantal concept explained out of no philosophical support? Isin't? How will you still stick to Advaitam with out loosing the reality of at least two forms i/we have stated here?

To put it simple, the substance here is only One! There is no other way to uphold the "Advaitam" and no vaishna tradition disapproves this truth. This is the ideal base on which we happily say, Vishnu is Rama is NraShima etc.

So far, I think we are understanding each other on this point.



But, now take this Vishnu Saharasa nama - Lord Shiva says, uttering the Name of "Rama" three times is equal to uttering the thousands of names of Lord Vishnu! It is not an unaccepted sloka in the Sri Vaishnava tradition and how are you accepting the difference in pala or equating the name of "Rama" as equal to all 1000 names? Isin't namaBeda? Offense?

It is not an offense, because this is explicitly stated in shAstra. This is unlike references like "kRiShNa is original form of nArAyaNa" which I must point out is not explicitly stated.

It is not stated that the form of rAma is somehow more complete than all the other forms whose names are mentioned. But even if we were to infer that on the grounds that chanting rAma is equal to chanting all 1000 names (a very generous inference, frankly), there is nothing there implying that chanting kRiShNa is equal to chanting all the names.



Looks something more is still there with out distorting the "Advaitam" for the Lord and such difference is not on the substance or quality of the Lord ( in fact, Lord and His qualities also do not have difference - so why i said, there is not even rupaBeda - also asked to think in this direction of Rupa as Qualities of Him)

VishwaRupa is not the VishwaRupa of Lord Vishnu and it is what is shown to Arjuna by Krshna! Not sure if you call it "Vishnu's VishwaRupa and Vishnu does not show VishwaRupa" and it is only Krshna leela!

The issue does not arise. For me, there is no difference between Krishna and Vishnu, and so whether Krishna displays the vishva-rUpa or some other form does, makes no difference to me. The vishva-rUpa is the form of the Lord in which His unlimited qualities are all displayed in their unlimited majesty. No one can behold that form or look upon Him like that unless He wills it, and even then, they will find it difficult to relate to Him in that way, as Arjuna did in the gItA 11th chapter. That is why He takes other forms in which His glories are partially concealed, so that He can enjoy the bhakti of the jIvAtmas who cannot relate to him in His unconcealed majesty. The key point here is that He is the same parama puruSha regardless of what form He takes, and at any time He can reveal more or even all of His glories if that is what He wants.



This is the path to the answer! :) Eternally existing forms but for Vaishnavas, Lord is Personal always! So, we are not definiing personality on the basis of possessing innumerable forms! ( God's forms are classified but not the numbers). So, it is not the forms which has new new personalities but the Original one which must have all the innumerable qualities ( including the Rupa's as His qualities - As He enacts a Rupa or Avatara for a particular purpose etc. Purusha avatara is for a Purpose - Here purpose is a Sport in SV, His nature in Dvaita, For the benefit of Jiva in other Vaishnava traditions)

Several points here:

First, in shrI rUpa gosvAmI's bhakti-rasAmRita-sindhu, he selects 64 qualities and argues that shrI kRiShNa is the svayam bhagavAn on the basis of His fully manifesting all 64. According to this argument, viShNu only displays 62, and so on. So this is clearly an argument for kRiShNa somehow being a fuller expression of the Lord than other forms like viShNu on milk ocean. Second, the qualities themselves are deliberately selected so that only kRiShNa could fulfill all of them. For example, the 64th quality is His possessing and playing the flute. Well, obviously of all of Lord's forms mentioned in extant shAstras, only the form of kRiShNa is known to satisfy that one, so forgive me for saying it, but the criteria seem deliberately arranged to arrive at only one conclusion.

Secondly, if you want to decide which form is the "original" one "which must have all the innumerable qualities," then why not select the parama puruSha with countless arms, heads, legs, feet as mentioned in the vedas? There are several reasons why it makes more sense to to take this form as the "original" who enacts other forms for specific LILa:
1) This is the form mentioned in shruti, is described as the origin of everything, and equated to brahman aka paramAtmA aka parama puruSha aka nArAyaNa. In other words, these terms are synonymous and refer to one concept only.
2) This is the form which clearly has and displays all the infinite qualities, judging by the descriptions found in shruti.
3) This is the form which required special eyes to see, as when Arjuna asked to see it. By contrast, other forms of the Lord are taken specifically for accessibility, such as when He takes kShIrodAkashAyi viShNu for brahmA and anya-devatas to behold, or forms like rAma or kRiShNa for the ayodhya-vAsis and vraja-vAsis respetively.



This is the core detailed in the Krshna Sandarpa - The source of all in the sense that, the 'Person' who posses everything, choose to exhibit what He likes and desire, plays leela is in the eternal form of Lord Krshna. ( The banyan leaf leela is not considered un-real and the famous Aaandal or PeriyAlware did not consider VadaPatraSaayi as unreal maya but the actual ParaBrahman Himself - So dont want to go in to more details as a good vaishnava we do not challenge the Poorvacharyas)

Just to clarify, I am not saying that this form is unreal. I am merely pointing out that your conclusion, viz that this form is that into which everything goes after pralaya, and is thus the "original form," (which is itself not consistent with what gauDIyas say about the Lord's "original form") is implicitly based on the premise that the vision of mArkanDeya was real. Yet the bhAgavatam indicates that it clearly never happened, but was merely a play of the Lord's mAyA.



Now, the contentions here are....

Are other forms of Lord are Purna or Not! The answer is, since there is no difference between Lord and His Qualities and His Rupa, they MUST be Purna too! But, on a Rasa Level for the benefit of the Jiva, They CHOOSE not to exhibit what Krshna exhibits ( Manifest itself is not a good word - i am very weak in english to pick any right word to describe this). Nrashima is meant to protect His devotee and He is not meant to protect yadu's or play sport with gopikas ( though He can - But for that, He is in the sweetest form of the MaakanChore Krshna who steals all the Pure white butter like hearts). So, do not try to raise a question thinking "Other Forms are not Purnam" as in their constitution or substance but they chose/choose not to exhibit the Poornatva as they appear/manifest for a purpose and accomplish it and remain eternal! (purusa, pumsa, amsa all are in this category) They all are purna! ( This is not a disputed fact by Gaudiyas either - Jiva G clearly distinguishes this with so much of pain in the first few slokas itself). The highest benefit for the Jiva is being part of His play, being subject of His love and this is the reason Gaudiyas also expand the Purusha Arthas with one more, Prema as the utimate goal for Jiva. ( The benefit of undergoing samsara and release stops at Moksha but the eternal duty of the Jiva is no longer the Moksha but the enjoyment of Lord and engaged with Him in the loving service for His pleasure. This two fold post moksha anubava is also there in the SriVaishnavaism - jivan's Moksha for the personal enjoyment with out samsara for the jiva or jivan's Moksha for the only KaimKaryams of the Lord with no tinge of care for his own happiness)

So again, you are making an argument along the lines of the specific mood of the Lord and His devotee. But, and this is key - it still does not establish that Krishna's form is somehow more "original" than any other form. All this really says is that He takes different forms for the pleasure of His devotees. Yes, I am aware that gauDIyas consider that devotion in the mood of mAdhurya-rasa to be better than that of other kinds of devotion, but this too is at best subjective - I do not know of any shAstric pramANa which states that. Finally, even if we could prove that, it is not clear that mAdhurya-rasa being superior implies that kRiShNa's form is somehow more "original," because (as you know), even devotion in what you would call mAdhurya-rasa is expressed towards the Lord in other forms as in the writings of the Alvars such as AnDAL.



So the point is subtle where non-difference must be kept intact but still the nature of engagement of the Bagavan with His particular Rupa as per His Choice again, for the benefit of the dependent Jiva! All the avatars happens for certain purpose and the One who does all this for the Jiva, or as His sport is remaining in the form of Lord Krshna!

This again does not come across clearly from shAstra. It is not that kRiShNa only takes this form for sport while other forms are somehow for a specific purpose. The Lord's purpose and His sporting with His devotees are both one, so in essence there is no difference between His taking form as kRiShNa or His taking form as rAma. The difference only is in the personality He exhibits and consequently the kinds of devotion He accepts in each form.

jai shrI kRiShNa!

brahma jijnasa
12 January 2013, 03:35 PM
Namaste philosoraptor

Here I will quote what you said to me and grames in the previous posts.

to grames


I am fully prepared to accept an explanation as true when it seems to be the best one that matches the evidence.

But you have doubts about the authenticity of evidence.



Authorship means it is not apaurusheya, and thus is subject to the check of being dependent on the authority of shruti.






How did author compiled a scripture?
Bearing in mind what was said in the sruti he compiled a scripture. If this is not so then Vyasadeva and Romaharshana are not authorities at all and the scriptures that they compiled are useless.


This is completely irrelevant. For starters, the details of the purANas' authorship are only known from the authored purANas themselves. We have no independent accounting of their authorship. Secondly, authorship already indicates that they are not apaurusheya, and thus are not on the level of shruti. Third, merely being authored by a great RiShi or God Himself requires additional assumptions that the author is who He says He is, and that He is not attempting to mislead anyone. Take Buddha for example - the bhAgavatam says he is an avatAra (we can stipulate that he is a shaktyAvesha) and that he would "mislead the atheists" (as per the ISKCON translation). So, are buddha's words apaurusheya? Why not? He is God's empowered incarnation, right?


You said "This is completely irrelevant."
How it can be irrelevant? I think that's the most important thing. As far as I know all the Vaishnava sampradayas accept authorship as described in the Puranas. None of the Vaishnava sampradayas is doubting that description.
I can agree with what you say "Authorship means it is not apaurusheya, and thus is subject to the check of being dependent on the authority of shruti" but how to check the statements from smritis like Puranas and Pancaratras for compliance with srutis if some srutis no longer exist?
So the most important thing is exactly this:



How did author compiled a scripture?
Bearing in mind what was said in the sruti he compiled a scripture. If this is not so then Vyasadeva and Romaharshana are not authorities at all and the scriptures that they compiled are useless.


It presupposes that formerly such srutis existed in which these descriptions regarding the position of Lord Krishna were given.
Formerly there were much more srutis than now.



and that He is not attempting to mislead anyone

Do you really think that the verses composed by Vyasadeva and gathered by Jiva Goswami were intended to deceive? :)

Regarding interpolation. Even if we assume that some verses were interpolated, does that mean that all the verses collected by Jiva Goswami were interpolated? None of the Vaishnava sampradayas would accept some "interpolation theory". As I have said earlier Jiva Goswami did not come to his conclusions on the basis of a single verse. There are plenty of verses.



This is especially true considering that the Krishna interpretation contradicts other statements in the bhAgavatam indicating that viShNu incarnated as kRiShNa.
...
that the evidence provided by Jiva gosvami in support of his interpretation of bhAgavatam 1.3.28 is very oblique, to say the least.


Many of these verses Jiva Gosvami examined.

to grames


My stance is, quite simply, that the shruti does not, I repeat, does NOT make a distinction between nArAyaNa, viShNu, etc.



It is not stated that the form of rAma is somehow more complete than all the other forms


If there is not any difference at all between Lord Krishna and other forms of the Lord, and if form of Lord Krishna is not somehow more complete than all the other forms, then why have all the forms called amsas while only Lord Krishna is not amsa? Lord Krishna is nobody's amsa or part! Word aį¹Å›a means "a part". A part is somehow less complete than the whole. The very word aį¹Å›a "a part" implies that they are somehow less complete than Lord Krishna.



uttering the Name of "Rama" three times is equal to uttering the thousands of names of Lord Vishnu!


That means that the holy name of Lord Rama has a higher spiritual power than some other names. This is, again, consistent with the view that the Lord appears in the form of Lord Rama in a more complete manner than in other forms. If this is not so then why would the name of Lord Rama had a higher spiritual power.

We should also notice that there is the difference between "complete" "more complete" and "the most complete". For all forms of the Lord are said to be simultaneously "a part" and "plenary", but for Lord Krishna is not said "a part" but only "complete" or even "the most complete".

Even Lord Narayana is said to be a part of Lord Krishna in Bhagavatam 10.14.14 ( http://vedabase.net/sb/10/14/14/en ).
In Bhagavatam 1.9.18 ( http://vedabase.net/sb/1/9/18/en ) Lord Krishna is described as "He is the first Nārāyaį¹‡a". So it is not Lord Narayana the first at all but is Lord Krishna. He is that "First One" from whom everything else emerges. "Everything else" includes Lord Narayana, all other forms of Lord Vishnu, all living beings and everything that is material.

regards

Omkara
13 January 2013, 10:07 AM
That means that the holy name of Lord Rama has a higher spiritual power than some other names. This is, again, consistent with the view that the Lord appears in the form of Lord Rama in a more complete manner than in other forms. If this is not so then why would the name of Lord Rama had a higher spiritual power.



Other Vaishnava sects consider this to be an arthavada. In any case, "Rama" as a name of Lord Vishnu does not refer to the avatar Rama but rather that Lord Vishnu posesses the qualities refferd to by the name Rama.

Omkara
13 January 2013, 01:17 PM
Would you mind using a larger font?

Jogesh
13 January 2013, 05:58 PM
Gaudiyas would quote from any scripture, even tamasic ones. In every scripture there are some genuine knowledge.

regards

That is not true, Sri Chaitanya forbade Sri Advaita Acarya from reading and teaching Yoga Vasistha of Valmiki when he came to know about it.

(I encourage you to read between the lines on that one :cool1: )

Omkara
14 January 2013, 01:44 AM
Do you really think that the verses composed by Vyasadeva and gathered by Jiva Goswami were intended to deceive? :)



No, what is being said is that Jiva Goswamin's interpretation of those verses is wrong.

Necromancer
14 January 2013, 02:01 AM
Hari Om.

All I have to say about this, is that I'll be happy when I can finally understand what a 'Demigod' is. :dunno:

That's Lord Siva from a Vaisnava Perspective.

Aum Namah Shivaya

Necromancer
14 January 2013, 02:55 AM
Living as a Shaiva in an ISKCON Temple is very difficult. Especially when you confide in a few close friends, who thereafter will try and 'convert' you from that point on.

I never tried it on with them, but then again, I was 'outnumbered'. This is where I first heard words like 'demigod' and 'shetan'. Still, it made me at least try and overcome my annoyance by seeing Lord Shiva in Lord Vishnu and vice-versa instead of getting angry with them.

In the end, I fell for Lord Keshava and realised I had a weird 'snake thing' going on. Seriously though, in many ways the two images both symbolically AND representationally are almost identical. I started to focus on what was 'the same' and realised in the end that everything was.

I never really got into the whole 'Krishna Leela' thing, but I was very interested in stories from the Mahabharata and Ramayana and I had a soft-spot for Lord Rama - Lord Shiva's greatest devotee - (Ravana deserved it for his insolence)..so, everybody 'tolerated' me....anyway, I am digressing here, but now you can see why I say it.

Aum Namo Narayanaya.

Omkara
14 January 2013, 10:13 AM
Hari Om.

All I have to say about this, is that I'll be happy when I can finally understand what a 'Demigod' is. :dunno:

That's Lord Siva from a Vaisnava Perspective.

Aum Namah Shivaya

Prabhupada's use of the word 'demigod' for deva is an unfortunate choice of words.

Omkara
14 January 2013, 10:30 AM
Especially when you confide in a few close friends, who thereafter will try and 'convert' you from that point on.



I wonder why ISKCONites try so hard to proselytize.

brahma jijnasa
14 January 2013, 10:50 AM
Other Vaishnava sects consider this to be an arthavada.

That the scriptures wanted to say that this is arthavada, then they would have said so, "Now we'll say one arthavada" but they don't. Gaudiyas would accept this scriptural statement as it is.


In any case, "Rama" as a name of Lord Vishnu does not refer to the avatar Rama but rather that Lord Vishnu posesses the qualities refferd to by the name Rama.

This form of Lord Vishnu who possesses the qualities refferd to by the name Rama indeed is Lord Rama.


Would you mind using a larger font?

You can increase the size of fonts in your web browser. You can increase the view of the web page with the zoom option too.


No, what is being said is that Jiva Goswamin's interpretation of those verses is wrong.

No, see his post, he says that there are verses in the scriptures about Lord Krishna with the purpose to mislead. He even mentioned that the Buddha was an incarnation of Lord Vishnu who descends to deceive.


regards

Jogesh
14 January 2013, 10:52 AM
brahma jijnasa,

please use a larger font..this is silly

:D

brahma jijnasa
14 January 2013, 10:53 AM
That is not true, Sri Chaitanya forbade ...

We can see that Gaudiya Vaishnavas quoted from various Puranas in their writings. They even quoted from those that are considered tamasic.


regards

philosoraptor
14 January 2013, 10:56 AM
That is not true, Sri Chaitanya forbade Sri Advaita Acarya from reading and teaching Yoga Vasistha of Valmiki when he came to know about it.

(I encourage you to read between the lines on that one :cool1: )

Pranams,

This is news to me. Why did he forbid its teaching? Do you have the location of any quotes in which this is explained?

Jogesh
14 January 2013, 10:59 AM
We can see that Gaudiya Vaishnavas quoted from various Puranas in their writings. They even quoted from those that are considered tamasic.


regards

Yoga Vasistha is not Tamasic or a Purana...

:D

Jogesh
14 January 2013, 11:02 AM
Pranams,

This is news to me. Why did he forbid its teaching? Do you have the location of any quotes in which this is explained?

He forbade it because it's conclusions were not so much in line with Gaudiya Vaishnava Siddhanta...

Advaita Acarya has a very fitting name for someone who would study Yog-Vasistha wouldn't you agree..?

The story is found in CC I believe, I will locate later...just starting my work day here.

namaskar

philosoraptor
14 January 2013, 11:03 AM
No, see his post, he says that there are verses in the scriptures about Lord Krishna with the purpose to mislead. He even mentioned that the Buddha was an incarnation of Lord Vishnu who descends to deceive.

Pranams,

This is not what I said. What I said is that when a scripture is authored, you need additional assumptions about the credentials of the author and his willingness to enlighten and not deceive, in order to accept its contents as true. This is why apaureusheya-granthas are more authoritative - no such assumptions are required because they have no author. Paurusheya granthas by contrast, are dependent on not contradicting apaurusheya-granthas in order to be considered authoritative.

I specifically gave the example of Buddha to explain why a very exalted person's words should not be accepted as genuine merely on the strength of his position/status. From your own ISKCON translation of the bhAgavatam:

"SB 1.3.24 — Then, in the beginning of Kali-yuga, the Lord will appear as Lord Buddha, the son of Ańjanā, in the province of Gayā, just for the purpose of deluding those who are envious of the faithful theist."

Whether I believe Vyaasa intended to deceive or not is besides the point (I obviously don't, but again that's secondary). We are discussing epistemological principles here. Belief is secondary. Moreover, you can't argue that everything found in the smRitis authored by Vyaasa came from Vyaasa himself, as there are enough differences between different recensions of almost every smRiti to conclude that human interpolation has occurred. This is especially noticeable with verses that seek to promote some anya-devata as being superior to Vishnu.

brahma jijnasa
14 January 2013, 11:04 AM
All I have to say about this, is that I'll be happy when I can finally understand what a 'Demigod' is. :dunno:




Prabhupada's use of the word 'demigod' for deva is an unfortunate choice of words.


Prabhupada used the word "demigod" in the sense of "one who is not Lord Krishna" or in the sense of "one who is not The Supreme Lord".
Gaudiya Vaishnavas consider that the gods like Brahma Indra Agni etc are subordinate to Lord Krishna.

As far as I know Gaudiya Vaishnavas explained that there are at least two different forms of Lord Shiva. One of them is Lord Vishnu himself, called Lord Sadasiva, He is Vishnu tattva, while the other Shiva is not Vishnu but is one of the three gods amongst Brahma Vishnu Shiva.
That Lord Shiva who is not Lord Vishnu is often called "a demigod" in the writings of the Gaudiya Vaishnavas.

regards

philosoraptor
14 January 2013, 11:23 AM
He forbade it because it's conclusions were not so much in line with Gaudiya Vaishnava Siddhanta...

Advaita Acarya has a very fitting name for someone who would study Yog-Vasistha wouldn't you agree..?

The story is found in CC I believe, I will locate later...just starting my work day here.

namaskar

I was wanting to know what specifically was written in YV which contradicted their teachings. I take it that Gaudiyas don't regard YV as an authored work of Valmiki then? I myself have not studied YV, but I noticed that Advaitins really like this particular text.

Jogesh
14 January 2013, 11:27 AM
I was wanting to know what specifically was written in YV which contradicted their teachings. I take it that Gaudiyas don't regard YV as an authored work of Valmiki then? I myself have not studied YV, but I noticed that Advaitins really like this particular text.

Yoga Visistha teaches Advaitavada...

;)

Omkara
15 January 2013, 09:04 AM
If there is not any difference at all between Lord Krishna and other forms of the Lord, and if form of Lord Krishna is not somehow more complete than all the other forms, then why have all the forms called amsas while only Lord Krishna is not amsa? Lord Krishna is nobody's amsa or part! Word aṁśa means "a part". A part is somehow less complete than the whole. The very word aṁśa "a part" implies that they are somehow less complete than Lord Krishna.

That means that the holy name of Lord Rama has a higher spiritual power than some other names. This is, again, consistent with the view that the Lord appears in the form of Lord Rama in a more complete manner than in other forms. If this is not so then why would the name of Lord Rama had a higher spiritual power.

We should also notice that there is the difference between "complete" "more complete" and "the most complete". For all forms of the Lord are said to be simultaneously "a part" and "plenary", but for Lord Krishna is not said "a part" but only "complete" or even "the most complete".

Even Lord Narayana is said to be a part of Lord Krishna in Bhagavatam 10.14.14 ( http://vedabase.net/sb/10/14/14/en ).
In Bhagavatam 1.9.18 ( http://vedabase.net/sb/1/9/18/en ) Lord Krishna is described as "He is the first Nārāyaṇa". So it is not Lord Narayana the first at all but is Lord Krishna. He is that "First One" from whom everything else emerges. "Everything else" includes Lord Narayana, all other forms of Lord Vishnu, all living beings and everything that is material.






That the scriptures wanted to say that this is arthavada, then they would have said so, "Now we'll say one arthavada" but they don't. Gaudiyas would accept this scriptural statement as it is.

This form of Lord Vishnu who possesses the qualities refferd to by the name Rama indeed is Lord Rama.



Please provide an example in a scripture where an arthavada is preceded by a sentence declaring the next sentence to be an arthavada. Are you sure you know what an Arthavada is?

Omkara
15 January 2013, 01:19 PM
While it teaches monism, the Yoga Vashishta is a rewarding read for non-advaitins too.

brahma jijnasa
15 January 2013, 07:22 PM
Are you sure you know what an Arthavada is?

Okay then maybe I do not know what is Arthavada. Explain, then I'll comment.

regards

Necromancer
15 January 2013, 07:32 PM
Prabhupada used the word "demigod" in the sense of "one who is not Lord Krishna" or in the sense of "one who is not The Supreme Lord".
Gaudiya Vaishnavas consider that the gods like Brahma Indra Agni etc are subordinate to Lord Krishna.

As far as I know Gaudiya Vaishnavas explained that there are at least two different forms of Lord Shiva. One of them is Lord Vishnu himself, called Lord Sadasiva, He is Vishnu tattva, while the other Shiva is not Vishnu but is one of the three gods amongst Brahma Vishnu Shiva.
That Lord Shiva who is not Lord Vishnu is often called "a demigod" in the writings of the Gaudiya Vaishnavas.

regards
Namaste.

I often wonder why it is that the same five-headed naga resides over the Shiva Lingam and the head of Lord Vishnu.

I also wonder why it is that both are in Samadhi, being cradled by the universe?

Recently, I've been wondering why it is, that the four arms of Lord Bhairava hold exactly the same things as Lord Narayana, except for the head of Lord Brahma, where a Lotus Flower should be...and if you know the story about how Lord Brahma was 'born', this holds great significance to one.

Wondering why, neither Lord Brahma nor Lord Vishnu could find the 'end' of Lord Shiva's Jyotir Lingam when tested..

The questions go on and on...

Aum Namah Shivaya

philosoraptor
15 January 2013, 08:55 PM
Namaste.

I often wonder why it is that the same five-headed naga resides over the Shiva Lingam and the head of Lord Vishnu.

The serpent cradling Lord Vishnu is Ananta-Sesha who has countless heads. This is different from the serpent associated with Shiva, whom I believe is Vasuki (Omkar might know better).



I also wonder why it is that both are in Samadhi, being cradled by the universe?

Where is your evidence that Vishnu is in "samadhi?"



Wondering why, neither Lord Brahma nor Lord Vishnu could find the 'end' of Lord Shiva's Jyotir Lingam when tested..

This story is not in shruti, and in fact is only in Shaivite puraanas which, apparently, even Shaivites don't accept as authoritative.

regards,

philosoraptor
15 January 2013, 08:57 PM
Living as a Shaiva in an ISKCON Temple is very difficult. Especially when you confide in a few close friends, who thereafter will try and 'convert' you from that point on.

I've had the same experience when living among Shaivites. As a matter of culture and even wisdom, I think it is prudent not to insist on sharing your religious views with those whom you know are bound to disagree.

Necromancer
15 January 2013, 09:30 PM
The serpent cradling Lord Vishnu is Ananta-Sesha who has countless heads. This is different from the serpent associated with Shiva, whom I believe is Vasuki (Omkar might know better).



Where is your evidence that Vishnu is in "samadhi?"



This story is not in shruti, and in fact is only in Shaivite puraanas which, apparently, even Shaivites don't accept as authoritative.

regards,

Namaste.

1. Due regards taken, but anyway...I have seen both, 5 heads and many heads, so point taken:
*Lord Krishna was more associated with the Panchanaga not Vishnu. Sorry.

2. No evidence, just a personal comparison made between lord Narayana being 'asleep in an ocean of bliss' which reminds me about how Lord Shiva is most of the time and

3. Of course the Vaishnavs will only believe in their sacred texts and discount the Puranas. I also studied all the volumes of the Srimad Bhagavatam and I accept Lord Vishnu and Lord Shiva as being 'one' now (it's just a preference thing is all) but sorry for trying with 'soft Advaita' here. lol

Even the 6th chapter of the Chandogya Upanishad compels me to do this.

Even Shruti says 'Neti Neti'.

That was all I need to ever know, forever!

Aum Namah Shivaya

Omkara
15 January 2013, 09:34 PM
Okay then maybe I do not know what is Arthavada. Explain, then I'll comment.

regards

arthavAda -Exaggerated or hyperbolic statements of praise and figurative speech which are not to be taken literally.

Necromancer
15 January 2013, 09:54 PM
I've had the same experience when living among Shaivites. As a matter of culture and even wisdom, I think it is prudent not to insist on sharing your religious views with those whom you know are bound to disagree.
Namaste. Oh yes, I forgot to reply to this.

I was young and stupid back then...now, I am just old and stupid. :p

I realise I also don't belong in this sub-forum either, but as Srila Prabhupada once pointed out...giving up 'bad habits' is like switching off an electric fan.

Once you surrender to Lord Krishna, it's like pulling the plug out. Even though the power supply is disconnected, the blades will still go round and round for a while.

See? I gotta stop doing that. lol

Aum Namah Shivaya

Viraja
16 January 2013, 07:37 AM
Namaste.

I often wonder why it is that the same five-headed naga resides over the Shiva Lingam and the head of Lord Vishnu.

I also wonder why it is that both are in Samadhi, being cradled by the universe?

Recently, I've been wondering why it is, that the four arms of Lord Bhairava hold exactly the same things as Lord Narayana, except for the head of Lord Brahma, where a Lotus Flower should be...and if you know the story about how Lord Brahma was 'born', this holds great significance to one.

Wondering why, neither Lord Brahma nor Lord Vishnu could find the 'end' of Lord Shiva's Jyotir Lingam when tested..

The questions go on and on...

Aum Namah Shivaya

Necro!

I understand what you're trying to say, if not 5-headed serpent, it is just a serpent that is associated with both Vishnu and Shiva, and you are curious to know why, right?

The serpent is 'kAlA' or 'time personnified' - the time within which individual soul is held in 'bondage state'. Both Lord Shiva and Sri Vishnu support this bonded individual, or 'samsari' but they themselves are free from it.

I used to believe both Vishnu and Shiva are in 'yoga nidhra', contemplating about the universe.

Lord Vishnu plays a lot of Maya... like the time when Shiva was Bikshatana and Vishnu was his wife and they went around teaching the arrogant pundits a lesson.. Aiyappa is born of Vishnu as mother and Shiva as father... I presume Vishnu allowed himself to Maya for a sacred reason.. as that of Thiruvannamalayappa to manifest in full glory to devotees..

Necromancer
16 January 2013, 07:50 AM
Necro!

I understand what you're trying to say, if not 5-headed serpent, it is just a serpent that is associated with both Vishnu and Shiva, and you are curious to know why, right?

The serpent is 'kAlA' or 'time personnified' - the time within which individual soul is held in 'bondage state'. Both Lord Shiva and Sri Vishnu support this bonded individual, or 'samsari' but they themselves are free from it.

I used to believe both Vishnu and Shiva are in 'yoga nidhra', contemplating about the universe.

Lord Vishnu plays a lot of Maya... like the time when Shiva was Bikshatana and Vishnu was his wife and they went around teaching the arrogant pundits a lesson.. Aiyappa is born of Vishnu as mother and Shiva as father... I presume Vishnu allowed himself to Maya for a sacred reason.. as that of Thiruvannamalayappa to manifest in full glory to devotees..
Namaste. Yeah, like when Lord Vishnu came to earth as a female dancer to make that yogi blow himself up after Lord Shiva granted him a boon to blow other people up...then they had an affair and Ayappan was born (another story about how that happened from the Shiva Puran)...Vaishnavas don't believe in the Shiva Puran...and now I am told that neither do Shaivas. All the Trimurthi had very interesting Leelas together...amusing, too at times...

Thanks for the information about all the different serpents though, I never really went into that. (I knew the 5-headed one represented out 5 senses but that was all).

I also think I will take Philosoraptor's advice now. The disparity here is obvious, even to me.

Aum Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya

Viraja
16 January 2013, 08:19 AM
Sri Vishnu plucks out his own eye for the 1000-th Lotus in bhakti, when he is on to worship Shiva to procure Sudharshana chakra from him.

Shiva appears before both Tulsidas, worshipper of Rama, and before Jayadeva Goswami, worshipper of Krishna and blesses them.

Shiva and Vishnu have great mutual respect for each other, which is genuine, (not like a courtesy show in Corporate situations), it is only the unfortunate situation where some staunch devotees hate equally staunch devotees from the other sect!

Necromancer
16 January 2013, 09:03 AM
Shiva appears before both Tulsidas, worshipper of Rama, and before Jayadeva Goswami, worshipper of Krishna and blesses them
...and the biggest one?

At Rameshwaram in India, there's one of the 12 sacred Lingams. It was here, on the shores of the Palk Straight, that Lord Rama (an Avatar of Lord Vishnu) prayed with great devotion to Lord Shiva in the form of a Shiva Lingam to help Him and Lord Hanuman build the Pamban Bridge and for help/advice in defeating Ravana (another devotee of Lord Shiva who took the 'evil path') once they arrived in Lanka.

So, Lord Shiva is blessing those who worship Lord Rama who also worshipped Lord Shiva. It's nice, isn't it? *flees now. lulz

Aum Namah Shivaya

Omkara
16 January 2013, 10:55 AM
Sri Vishnu plucks out his own eye for the 1000-th Lotus in bhakti, when he is on to worship Shiva to procure Sudharshana chakra from him.

Shiva appears before both Tulsidas, worshipper of Rama, and before Jayadeva Goswami, worshipper of Krishna and blesses them.

Shiva and Vishnu have great mutual respect for each other, which is genuine, (not like a courtesy show in Corporate situations), it is only the unfortunate situation where some staunch devotees hate equally staunch devotees from the other sect!






...and the biggest one?

At Rameshwaram in India, there's one of the 12 sacred Lingams. It was here, on the shores of the Palk Straight, that Lord Rama (an Avatar of Lord Vishnu) prayed with great devotion to Lord Shiva in the form of a Shiva Lingam to help Him and Lord Hanuman build the Pamban Bridge and for help/advice in defeating Ravana (another devotee of Lord Shiva who took the 'evil path') once they arrived in Lanka.

So, Lord Shiva is blessing those who worship Lord Rama who also worshipped Lord Shiva. It's nice, isn't it? *flees now. lulz

Aum Namah Shivaya



Traditionalist shaivas and vaishnavas have ample reason for saying that Shiva and Vishnu are different and that one is superior to the other.

A few sample verses-

This is from the khila suktas of the Rig Veda.(Khila Sukta 33,known as the Shiva Samkalpa Sukta or the Shiva Samkalpa Upanishad)
All the Veda commentators have commented on this sukta(Uvata,Mahidara,Sayana)

13.Unmanifest, immeasurable, transcending beyond manifest and unmanifest,Shiva is, to be known as subtler than the subtle, May such my mind be of beautiful and divine resolves, filled with auspicious thoughts.
14.On the charming peak of Kailasha mountain is mountain is the home temple of the peaceful creator Shiva; gods rejoice in that.May such my mind be of beautiful and divine resolves, filled with auspicious thoughts.


23.Brahma is higher than the high,Higher than that high is Hari,Higher than that high is Sambhu.

Sanskrit verses for the above-
Paraatparato Brahma, Tat Paraatparato Harihi, Tat Paraatparato Sambhuhu, Tanme Siva Sankalpamastu

If they are both the same, why are they compared to each other and one said to be superior to the other?

Satapatha Brahmana 14.1.1 says that Lord Vishnu cannot control his love of glory.

Satapatha Brahmana 1.2.5.8 says that Lord Vishnu became tired after obtaining the three worlds from the devas as Vamana.

These are not qualities of a supreme being.

Vaishnavas can come up with equally compelling arguments.

There is strong reason to suppose that Shiva and Vishnu are separate beings and one is superior to another.

philosoraptor
16 January 2013, 11:48 AM
3. Of course the Vaishnavs will only believe in their sacred texts and discount the Puranas. I also studied all the volumes of the Srimad Bhagavatam and I accept Lord Vishnu and Lord Shiva as being 'one' now (it's just a preference thing is all) but sorry for trying with 'soft Advaita' here. lol

All vedAntins accept the primacy of shruti, and vaiShNavas do hold several of the purANas in high regard for their consistency with shruti, but still only as dependent authorities. The possible exception here may be some of the post-vedANtic traditions like gauDIya vaiShNavas who place a great deal of emphasis on the smRiti. But the point remains that, the story of viShNu and brahmA never finding the end of shiva's linga is in the purANas only, and not even in ones whose authority is universally accepted. As I had understood from Omkar's postings on Shaivism, many of these Shaivite purANas are not accepted as authoritative even by Shaivites.



Even the 6th chapter of the Chandogya Upanishad compels me to do this.

What is it specifically in the 6th chapter of the chAndogya which compels you to do what, exactly?

Viraja
16 January 2013, 11:50 AM
Omkar!

I do not know Shatapatha Brahmana verses - I have to know what incidences they are particularly referring to and coincide with Vaishnava narration to infer what is my take on it. Sri Vishnu, as far as I know, took the very enormous Trivikramaavatara and did not become *tired*.

We also have the understanding that Shiva being of Tamasic nature, is easily pleased with anyone's devotion, even great and troublesome asuras to the point he gives extraordinary boons to them. We all know of the story of Basmasura (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhasmasur). It was only Sri Vishnu who saved Shiva in the end in that story!

This is not the trait of a supreme being either, right! Atleast not to me!

If Shiva does not respect Vishnu, then why does he want to give out the great Mantrarajapada Stotram in worship of Sri Hari's Narasimha form?

Also, it is said, Shiva once told Parvathi of the greatness of Rama Nama, that it is the *only* saviour to give moksha in kaliyuga. Upon hearing this, a mere fish in a nearby pond took avatara of 'Matsyendranatha' and walked away!

Viraja
16 January 2013, 01:15 PM
One can be fond of his deity very much. But that should not make him/her denounce someone else's, especially in a multi-cultural forum as this. Nobody here put down on Lord Shiva to do that!

In a recent discourse on Vijay T.V, on a function held to celebrate Lord Krishna's Janmashtami, when every speaker sung the glory of Sri Krishna, one speaker stood out - staunch Vaishnavite Sri U.Ve.Karunakarachariar - he, for the most part, was narrating about Lord Shiva's 'pittukku maN' lila... everyone was surprised, then finally he says, "the reason I am narrating this is because at the end of this lila, when Ma Parvathi questions Lord Shiva about it, Lord Shiva says that it was twice he got beaten thus and not only the entire Universe felt it but also even Sri Lakshmi because Lakshmi is none other than Parvathi, Vishnu is none other than Shiva".

I do not believe Shiva and Vishnu are one at the same. But, Vishnu is MY GOD, who is benevolent and capable of giving Moksha and I do not find any reason why people have to be offended in me having my faith and trust in my god.

I love Shiva too, VERY MUCH, as much as Sri U.Ve.Karunakarachariar, but I do not like, as a Srivaishnavite, that my god is looked down upon - afterall, so many stories are there, and there are some to blackmark each god in his own way!

I would, as a devotee seeking avenues that strengthen my devotion further, sing the glory of Sri Vishnu and ALSO, exercice my freedom to praise Shiva, which needs a greater depth of devotion and wisdom on the part of the devotee, IMHO!

philosoraptor
16 January 2013, 07:55 PM
One can be fond of his deity very much. But that should not make him/her denounce someone else's, especially in a multi-cultural forum as this. Nobody here put down on Lord Shiva to do that!

Pranams,

Yes, and let's also recognize that stating a relationship between two deities as it is understood within the bounds of one's tradition, is not ipso facto "putting down" any deity. So many times I see it argued by uninformed Neo-Hindu types that arguing any deva to be subordinate to Brahman is somehow "disrespectful" to them, even when copious references from the shruti are offered to prove this.

We can disagree without being disagreeable.

Omkara
16 January 2013, 09:06 PM
Aspirant01, do you mean to imply that the shruris try to demean or put down Shriman Narayana? Because most of my post was quoted verbatim from shruti.

In response to the assertion that Lord Shiva and Lord Vishnu are the same, I pointed out that there is shruti pramana to the effect that they are different heings. I understand that this is a touchy subject, but why should anyone take offence at my post when I simply quoted what shruti says?

My posting was not try and demean Lord Visnu, but to show that according to shruti, Lord Shiva and Lord Vishnu are different beings.

Necromancer
16 January 2013, 09:55 PM
My posting was not try and demean Lord Visnu, but to show that according to shruti, Lord Shiva and Lord Vishnu are different beings.
Namaste.

There's only one thing I know now. They would have to be in order for my heart to be forced to eventually have to decide between them.

I was going to go away...not because I felt anybody 'demeaned' anything and I was not offended (I really can't be anymore).

It's just that these paths exist separately for a reason, no matter 'who's God trumps whom'.

No matter if Upanishads reduce all 1008 forms of God down to one, and then Zero (Brahman) - as I was trying to get at before.

No matter all that...the 'key word' in this whole scenario...in the title is 'Gaudiya' and not just 'Vaishnava' amirite?

I have already given my heart to Lord Shiva, so there's nothing left now...if I need rebith many times because of it, that's Karma.

It all just boils down to 'personal bias' anyway and a lot of that is unintentional and done through Bhakti or whatever. A lot will claim that their version of the Sacred Texts is the only authentic one according to *insert great Holy Man here*.

Yeap, I realised that the teachings of Adi Shankaracharya would go down like a lead balloon here. At least I know now. lol

My Guruji told me many years ago that if you try and step into two boats at once you'll only end up in the water, no matter how good you can swim...

Goodbye, my Krishna-worshipping comrades. I wish you all peace and love.

As befitting all this, I shall leave you with this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TuLdpu2pko

*Oh the memories...

Viraja
17 January 2013, 07:25 AM
Aspirant01, do you mean to imply that the shruris try to demean or put down Shriman Narayana? Because most of my post was quoted verbatim from shruti.

In response to the assertion that Lord Shiva and Lord Vishnu are the same, I pointed out that there is shruti pramana to the effect that they are different heings. I understand that this is a touchy subject, but why should anyone take offence at my post when I simply quoted what shruti says?

My posting was not try and demean Lord Visnu, but to show that according to shruti, Lord Shiva and Lord Vishnu are different beings.

Omkar,

Please note I am a *bhakta* not a intellectual debating on who fits to be Brahman (by the way, I think both are Brahman - that they father different souls - afterall, there are 7 Billions on earth to father, and that is, for now...! ). If you provide Shruti pramanas, the best I can counter them is by way of citing stories from ithihasas or kshetra-puranas and so forth, which I did.

Also, I follow great Acharyas - like Srimad Ramanuja who have not only been great bhaktas, but also great scholars - he propounded an entire school of thought, he sure must have known the very shruti pramanas cited by you, but still advocates worship of Sriman Narayana, then that means *something* to me.

That's all that I can say.

brahma jijnasa
17 January 2013, 06:26 PM
There is strong reason to suppose that Shiva and Vishnu are separate beings and one is superior to another.

"Vishnu" can be the name of the Sun God also. He is not the Supreme Lord.

regards

brahma jijnasa
17 January 2013, 06:52 PM
arthavAda -Exaggerated or hyperbolic statements of praise and figurative speech which are not to be taken literally.

That which is a figure of speech should be clear from the text itself. The famous verses from the Upanishads, Mundaka Upanishad and Svetasvatara Upanishad, about two birds are a typical example. Thus "bird" is not to be taken literally.
"There are two birds in one tree. One of them is eating the fruits of the tree, while the other is witnessing the actions..."

But what is a figure of speech in this:


uttering the Name of "Rama" three times is equal to uttering the thousands of names of Lord Vishnu!

Brihad-vishnu-sahasranama-stotra in the Uttara-khanda of the Padma Purana:


[Lord Siva addressed his wife, Durga:] 'O Varanana, 'I chant the holy name of Rama, Rama, Rama and thus enjoy this beautiful sound. This holy name of Ramacandra is equal to one thousand holy names of Lord Vishnu.'

Brahmanda Purana:


"The pious results derived from chanting the thousand holy names of Vishnu three times can be attained by only one utterance of the holy name of Krishna."

Simply by chanting the name of Krishna once, one can attain the same results achieved by chanting the holy name of Rama three times.

Brahma-Samhita, from the Commentary of Srila Jiva Gosvami:


That Krsna is the most important name of the Supreme Personality of Godhead is explained in the Padma Purana, Prabhasa-khanda, where, in a conversation between Narada and Kusadhvaja, the following words of the Supreme Personality of Godhead are repeated: "O Arjuna, of all My holy names, Krsna is the most important."


Laghu-bhagavatamrta by Rupa Gosvami, Chapter Five, quotes from Padma Purana:


"In Lord Nrsimha, Ramacandra, and Krsna the six transcendental opulences are perfect and complete. They are the paravasthas (most important forms of the Lord). From Him (Krsna) they are manifested as lamps are lighted from an (original) lamp."

Earlier in my post #177 on page 18, I said:


That means that the holy name of Lord Rama has a higher spiritual power than some other names. This is, again, consistent with the view that the Lord appears in the form of Lord Rama in a more complete manner than in other forms. If this is not so then why would the name of Lord Rama had a higher spiritual power.

We should also notice that there is the difference between "complete" "more complete" and "the most complete". For all forms of the Lord are said to be simultaneously "a part" and "plenary", but for Lord Krishna is not said "a part" but only "complete" or even "the most complete".

That the Lord appears in the form of Lord Krishna in the most complete manner than in other forms is also confirmed in Garga Samhita.
Extract from Garga Samhita, kindly provided by ShivaFan, I have examined in my post #158 on page 16:
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?p=97144#post97144

regards

Omkara
17 January 2013, 09:03 PM
"Vishnu" can be the name of the Sun God also. He is not the Supreme Lord.

regards

This is a stupid argument. In the case of the first verse, the 'Hari' and 'Sambhu' being compared are both stated to be greater than Brahma. Thus Hari and Sambhu cannot mean anyone other than Vishnu and Shiva.

As for the Satapatha Brahmana verses, they occur as part of the stories of Vamana and Hayagriva avatars. Do you mean to say that these are avatars of Surya?

Omkara
17 January 2013, 09:09 PM
Omkar,

Please note I am a *bhakta* not a intellectual debating on who fits to be Brahman (by the way, I think both are Brahman - that they father different souls - afterall, there are 7 Billions on earth to father, and that is, for now...! ). If you provide Shruti pramanas, the best I can counter them is by way of citing stories from ithihasas or kshetra-puranas and so forth, which I did.

Also, I follow great Acharyas - like Srimad Ramanuja who have not only been great bhaktas, but also great scholars - he propounded an entire school of thought, he sure must have known the very shruti pramanas cited by you, but still advocates worship of Sriman Narayana, then that means *something* to me.

That's all that I can say.

The point I was making is that Vishnu and Shiva are different beings, something Sri Ramanujacharya agrees to.

Omkara
17 January 2013, 09:10 PM
That which is a figure of speech should be clear from the text itself. The famous verses from the Upanishads, Mundaka Upanishad and Svetasvatara Upanishad, about two birds are a typical example. Thus "bird" is not to be taken literally.
"There are two birds in one tree. One of them is eating the fruits of the tree, while the other is witnessing the actions..."


All phala stutis are arthavada.

Viraja
17 January 2013, 09:30 PM
The point I was making is that Vishnu and Shiva are different beings, something Sri Ramanujacharya agrees to.

Haha! I got you this time, Omkar!

You said i) Vishnu loves glory ii) Vishnu was tired after Trivikramaavatara and thus iii) Vishnu is unfit to be viewed as supreme Brahman and you also said, iv) Shiva is superior to Vishnu!

And you stated the above in response to my posting that "Vishnu offered his own eye for the 1000-th Lotus to Shiva to beget the Sudharshana Chakra"! :)

What you said as the qualities of Vishnu isn't agreeable to Ramanujacharya and thus to me! :(

Omkara
17 January 2013, 09:49 PM
Haha! I got you this time, Omkar!

You said i) Vishnu loves glory ii) Vishnu was tired after Trivikramaavatara and thus iii) Vishnu is unfit to be viewed as supreme Brahman and you also said, iv) Shiva is superior to Vishnu!

And you stated the above in response to my posting that "Vishnu offered his own eye for the 1000-th Lotus to Shiva to beget the Sudharshana Chakra"! :)

What you said as the qualities of Vishnu isn't agreeable to Ramanujacharya and thus to me! :(

Huh? I don't understand what you mean by saying that you "got me".

Obviously, I disagree with Ramanujacharya on Vishnu-Sarvottamatva, but that is because I find his arguments less convincing than those of other Acharyas who disagreed with him. I agree with Ramanujacharya that Vishnu and Shiva are different.

Ramanuja would not have agreed with the story you posted. He regarded all Shaiva puranas as tamasic.

Viraja
18 January 2013, 07:13 AM
Huh? I don't understand what you mean by saying that you "got me"..

I didn't pinpoint what was wrong with your reference to Shrutis last time. I just didn't feel like it. This time, I want to - lets refer back to the original conversation - I was telling about Vishnu's devotion to Shiva and Shiva's respect of Vishnu's devotees and giving darshan to them - was there any implication of an intellectual 'debating' about who is superior? It was the narrative of a mere bhakta to a fellow bhakta. To this you said, Vishnu is inferior on several counts as cited by shrutis you follow. For one, I found it little insulting at that time, as in someone telling a bhakta that his deity is unworthy of worship. I thought you understood that in my subsequent messages, and now I got a chance to explicitly say that to you.



Ramanuja would not have agreed with the story you posted. He regarded all Shaiva puranas as tamasic.

I respect Srimad Ramanuja for his love of Sri Vishnu. I hold the right to respect Shiva too. Bhakti need not have confinements and parameters, I can also love any outside deity too. It is only you people who want to debate on who is superior that want to confine yourself to doing bhakti within your confinements.

brahma jijnasa
18 January 2013, 09:25 AM
Omkara

There I did not comment on what you were quoting from Satapatha Brahmana and that another text, but just this:


There is strong reason to suppose that Shiva and Vishnu are separate beings and one is superior to another.

Here at HDF I have seen some people would quote extensively from srutis like Rig Veda in order to show that Lord Vishnu is the Supreme or that Lord Shiva is the Supreme. Some of them would even quote to show that Lord Vishnu originated from Lord Shiva, and this they take for "Shiva and Vishnu are separate beings and one is superior to another". I mean this is really hilarious.
I mean, they spend so much time to post so many verses in order to show that Lord Vishnu is the Supreme and afterwards they or someone else would post so many verses in order to show that Lord Shiva is the Supreme and despite all this both of them come to the conclusion that "Shiva and Vishnu are separate beings"!!!??? and also that "one is superior to another"!!!???

To me it would be much more reasonable to conclude that both of them are Supreme in this case and not "Shiva and Vishnu are separate beings"!!!??? And by no means that Lord Shiva is superior to Lord Vishnu as some separate entity.
When we talk about the superiority of various forms of the One Lord, then the only thing that makes sense is to talk about the superiority of one of the forms of the Lord as not separated entity from another form of the Lord if they are really One Lord, One Supreme.


I mean what is the purpose of all these numerous quotations from Rig Veda to someone who does not know what is the Supreme Lord?
That reminds me of a verse from the Svetasvatara Upanishad:


"He who does not know that indestructible being of the Rig-Veda, that highest ether-like (Self) wherein all the gods reside, of what use is the Rig-Veda to him?"

regards

brahma jijnasa
18 January 2013, 09:26 AM
All phala stutis are arthavada.

So what is your point then?
Allow me to remind you. We were discussing this:


uttering the Name of "Rama" three times is equal to uttering the thousands of names of Lord Vishnu!




That means that the holy name of Lord Rama has a higher spiritual power than some other names. This is, again, consistent with the view that the Lord appears in the form of Lord Rama in a more complete manner than in other forms. If this is not so then why would the name of Lord Rama had a higher spiritual power.

Other Vaishnava sects consider this to be an arthavada.

Afterwards in my post #218 on page 22
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?p=97737#post97737
I provided statements from the scriptures.
I would like to know what is a figure of speech in them. It seems to me that they should be taken literally as they are. Nothing suggests that they should not be taken literally.

regards

Jogesh
18 January 2013, 11:06 AM
These debates of Gaudiya vs everyone else will never end...

A waste of time IMO...

These debates have not stopped, nor have they stopped between the Jews and Muslims...

Find some common ground, face your fears....anyone who thinks their Religion is above all others needs a reality/ego check..

(yawn)

philosoraptor
18 January 2013, 01:30 PM
You know, Jogesh, no one is asking you to participate....

Jogesh
18 January 2013, 01:47 PM
That sounds like....

passive aggressive 'please leave'

;)

philosoraptor
18 January 2013, 07:27 PM
That sounds like....

passive aggressive 'please leave'

;)

Not really. I don't care one way or another. I just don't understand the logic of jumping into a discussion and telling everyone to stop because it's supposedly fruitless.

Jogesh
18 January 2013, 08:02 PM
And I on the other hand do not see the logic of debating endlessly where there is no end in sight...

I have been around this block way too many times myself in years past I will say

however, each to his own, I certainly am not here to offend you..

I wish you all the best,

Jogesh

Jogesh
19 January 2013, 01:00 PM
Pranams,

This is news to me. Why did he forbid its teaching? Do you have the location of any quotes in which this is explained?

Ok Here's more detail, if you can't beat em join em hey? :cool1:

__________________

"Thus I expounded the Yoga-vasistha, which considers liberation the ultimate
goal of life. For this the Lord became angry at Me and treated Me with
apparent disrespect. Sri Caitanya Caritamrta Adi 12.40

purport - ACBS

There is a book of the name Yoga-vasistha that Mayavadis greatly favor
because it is full of impersonal misunderstandings regarding the Supreme
Personality of Godhead, with no touch of Vaisnavism. Factually, all
Vaisnavas should avoid such a book, but Advaita Acarya Prabhu, wanting
punishment from the Lord, began to support the impersonal statements of the
Yoga-vasistha. Thus Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu became extremely angry at Him
and seemingly treated Him disrespectfully. (Cc adi 12.40)

When Advaita Acarya Prabhu was reading Yoga-vasistha, Lord Caitanya
Mahaprabhu beat Him, but He never told Him not to come into His presence.(Cc
adi 12.45)

"I shall not soon be pleased with Mukunda Datta, for though he explains
devotional service among devotees, he then goes to Mayavadis to hear from
them the Yoga-vasistha-ramayana, which is full of Mayavada philosophy. For
this I am greatly displeased with him." Cc adi 17.65

;)

Omkara
21 January 2013, 09:03 PM
Find some common ground, face your fears....anyone who thinks their Religion is above all others needs a reality/ego check..



If you do not think that your beleif system is superior to the others on offer, there is no point in choosing that one out of the various beleif systems on offer.

Omkara
21 January 2013, 09:07 PM
So what is your point then?



The point is that this sentence is a phala stuti, and all phala stutis are arthavada. This is accepted even by Gaudiyas
It is disingenuous to accept all other phala stutis as arthavada but take this one literally.

Omkara
21 January 2013, 09:11 PM
Omkara

There I did not comment on what you were quoting from Satapatha Brahmana and that another text.



I pointed out references from shruti describing faults in Lord Vishnu to which you replied that the name Vishnu also can refer to Surya. And then you claim you were not trying to refute my quotation. Please be consistent. There was nothing in your reply about Shiva and Vishnu being the same.

Omkara
21 January 2013, 09:18 PM
I didn't pinpoint what was wrong with your reference to Shrutis last time. I just didn't feel like it. This time, I want to - lets refer back to the original conversation - I was telling about Vishnu's devotion to Shiva and Shiva's respect of Vishnu's devotees and giving darshan to them - was there any implication of an intellectual 'debating' about who is superior? It was the narrative of a mere bhakta to a fellow bhakta. To this you said, Vishnu is inferior on several counts as cited by shrutis you follow. For one, I found it little insulting at that time, as in someone telling a bhakta that his deity is unworthy of worship. I thought you understood that in my subsequent messages, and now I got a chance to explicitly say that to you.

Read my reply again. I was pointing out that Shiva and Vishnu are not the same. I did not make any claims in that post which are not solidy substantiated by shruti. If you disagree with them, you are free to offer an alternate interpretation.


I respect Srimad Ramanuja for his love of Sri Vishnu. I hold the right to respect Shiva too. Bhakti need not have confinements and parameters, I can also love any outside deity too. It is only you people who want to debate on who is superior that want to confine yourself to doing bhakti within your confinements.


"You people who want to debate who is superior" includes pretty much every acharya of Sanatana Dharma there has been.

smaranam
22 January 2013, 06:26 AM
I mean, they spend so much time to post so many verses in order to show that Lord Vishnu is the Supreme and afterwards they or someone else would post so many verses in order to show that Lord Shiva is the Supreme and despite all this both of them come to the conclusion that "Shiva and Vishnu are separate beings"!!!??? and also that "one is superior to another"!!!???

To me it would be much more reasonable to conclude that both of them are Supreme in this case and not "Shiva and Vishnu are separate beings"!!!??? And by no means that Lord Shiva is superior to Lord Vishnu as some separate entity.
When we talk about the superiority of various forms of the One Lord, then the only thing that makes sense is to talk about the superiority of one of the forms of the Lord as not separated entity from another form of the Lord if they are really One Lord, One Supreme.


regards

Namaste

VishNu--NArAyaN and Shiva--Shambhu/Shankar are different forms of the same Being, for a reason. I like to say that they are "roles" that the Supreme plays.

One form is shankha chakra gadAdhar (holds conch, discus, mace), another is trishula damrU-dhara (holding TrishuL and small drum with a thin middle)

One is mor-mukut / chintAmaNi-mukut-kirit , pItAmbar sohe, gale vaijayanti maala (peacock feather / chintamani jewel studded crown, long flower garland unto His knees)
Another is vyagrAmbara phanivar dhara (tiger skin and snake)

They are very very dear to each other and we can safely say they live in each other's hearts and are each other's AtmA.

If at all there is a question, it is about "which form of the Supreme Lord is superior or more complete"

Superior can indeed be relative. What appeals to one jiva as superior and complete may not necessarily to another. What holds priority for one may not for another. e.g. aishwarya - oppulence, madhurya - sweetness, ras - sweetness as in relationships between Lord and devotee, bhakti - devotion and service , jnAna - spiritual knowledge, etc.

What we have to agree upon is what each form stands for.

VishNu is Yogeshwar
Shiva is YogIshwar

VishNu is JagannAth
Shiva is JagadniyantA

VishNu is Vishwambhar
Shiva is VishwanAth

VishNu is bhUteshwar (Lord of all beings)
Shiva is bhUtanAth (Lord of all beings, but also worshipable Deity for the ghosts :) )

(the above in yellow and cyan is from a bhagwat katha (sapthaha) by a nice guru - context: When Lord Shiva disguised as a sadhu visits new born baby KRshNa at Nanda's palace )

Then again, the Gaudiyas for instance, will say, that even within VishNu tattva, KRshNa is the highest form and higher than the four armed NArAyaNA - this is with respect to (in context of) ras tattva. KRshNa has/brings highest 'ras' owing to His mAdhurya - sweetness.
MadhurAdhipater akhilam madhuram.
Shri VaishNavs may disagree (while some have agreed and switched over :) )

e.g. Where is the ras with Shiva? To most modern Shaivas He is not even a Person, just a tattva! Bholenath Himself participates in KRshNa's raas lila as a Gopi. Jai Jai Jai Gopeshwar MahAdev. So when ras is the priority, everyone agrees that KRshNa is the One. The point being, it was never a priority for Shiva bhaktas.

"Hey, my mommy is the best in the whole world! "
:)

That cannot be a false statement coming from an innocent child.
Mommy-tattva?

om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya ~

_/\_

Viraja
22 January 2013, 08:36 AM
Read my reply again. I was pointing out that Shiva and Vishnu are not the same. I did not make any claims in that post which are not solidy substantiated by shruti. If you disagree with them, you are free to offer an alternate interpretation.

As much as you say that you pointed out Shruti to me, I still stand by my claim that such pointing out of Shruti uncalled-for to a mere Bhakta (and telling him his deity is inferior) is of poor taste, nobody will do that.


"You people who want to debate who is superior" includes pretty much every acharya of Sanatana Dharma there has been.

So are you saying that King Ko Chengan Chozan, the Saiva king who built 70 Saiva temples, would have upset some Shaiva Acharya in having built the Vaishnava 'Thirunarayur divyadesam' for Thirunarayur Nambi (Vishnu)?

Did you know that Sri Adi Sankara worshipped Tirupathi Balaji when he visited Tirumala to establish the 'Dhana-Akarshana Yantra' for Sri Venkateswara?

http://www.kamakoti.org/images/adi/21.jpg

Also, I have numerous citings from Puranas already posted which show how Shiva respects Vishnu and Vishnu respects Shiva.

* Vishnu plucks out his own eye in bhakti, while praying to Shiva to get Sudharshan Chakra.

* Shiva gives darshan to both Jayadeva (Krishna bhakti) and Tulsidas (Ramabhakta).

* Rama worships Shiva both before and after war with Ravana.

* Shiva gives out Taraka mantra of Rama to those dead in Kashi, Shiva claims the superiority of Rama nama.

* Shiva worships Vishnu at 'ThirUnAngUr' to get rid of Brahmahathya dosha after slaying the 5th head of Brahma.

* Shiva takes form of Hanuman to serve Rama.

* Shiva gives out Mantrarajapada stotram in praise of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha.

* I also read somewhere Sri Krishna was a devotee of Shiva.

While I respect Acharyas (of both sects), I also respect the unity as advised by such Puranic instances and thus practice the same.
* For instance, if I were a Millionaire, I would be thrilled at an opportunity to renovate both Shaiva and Vaishnava temples that need work.

EDIT:

I browsed around the net, and I found that Vaishnavas who have undergone 'Pancha-samskara' procedure (that is ingrained the Conch and Disc marks on their upperarms) WOULD NOT worship Shiva or any other deity for that matter.

But I differ on several counts:

1. I have not undergone 'Pancha-samskara'.

2. My family background consists of worship of AdiShakti in the form of mother Karumaari and I have witnessed how she responded in meditative trance of mediums to some questions which really happened to come true in life.

3. I worship Srimad Ramanuja for his love of Sri Vishnu - in this, I hold that I love Sri Vishnu more than Shiva though I also respect Shiva and hence trust/believe in his ability to grant moksha (Sivaloka).

4. Even if I were a SriVaishnavite who had undergone 'Pancha-Samskara', I wouldn't see that as violating any principle of any acharya who I follow, if I were to merely recognize Shiva's glory and sing few bhajans in his praise now and then in an internet forum as this and to offer some (cyber) flowers by way of joining fellow devotees of Shiva, as a means of worshipping the supreme one way or other, as this forum has majority Shiva devotees only!


http://news.iskcon.com/files/photos/harihara.jpg
(http://news.iskcon.com/node/930#)The HariHara deity, located near Am Ghat in Navadwipa, West Bengal, India, is Vishnu (right half, holding disc) and Shiva (lighter colored half, holding trident) combined in a single form.

philosoraptor
22 January 2013, 11:04 AM
:goodpost: VishNu--NArAyaN and Shiva--Shambhu/Shankar are different forms of the same Being, for a reason. I like to say that they are "roles" that the Supreme plays.

Pranams,

Sri Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati seems to agree. In his commentary on Brahma-samhita, he says that Shiva is not a second Godhead or something like that.

My question then is as follows: if gauDIyas really believe this about shiva, then why would they object to someone worshipping shiva as the Supreme Lord and getting moksha from him?

To me, the whole idea of calling Shiva a "transformation" of Krishna (the yogurt-milk analogy is what I am referring to) is quite problematic, to say the least.

smaranam
22 January 2013, 12:16 PM
Pranams,

Sri Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati seems to agree. In his commentary on Brahma-samhita, he says that Shiva is not a second Godhead or something like that.

PraNAm

Yes, many GauDIya saints like the late Narayan Maharaj, and also Vallabhacharya who introduced PushTi mArg, agree.


My question then is as follows: if gauDIyas really believe this about shiva, then why would they object to someone worshipping shiva as the Supreme Lord and getting moksha from him?

I do not know but can only guess. First, let us not club them as "the GauDIyas" because that would not be fair to many Self-realized GauDIya VaishNavs, as GauDiya is a big superset.

Only a subset of these will tell friends - "don't go to Shiva, the path is rocky OR you will not reach" , but these people also have good intentions from their side. The only thing is,

a) either they do not have the big picture, and other GauDIyas may apologetically say that they are kanishTHa adhikAris or neophytes, don't pay attention.

OR

b) they are concerned that their friend is travelling on a barren road and will not stay focused. They cannot help compare the glories of shravaNam kirtanam vishnoh smaraNam... to the typical Shaiva path.

I agree that the two paths (established by sadhu sanga only) are very different. The sceneries are strikingly different, but the Shaiva scenery must suit the Shaivas so lets leave them alone.

People who engage in telling others they should not go the modern-day Shaiva route, sincerely think that if VaishNav route / KRshNa bhakti is Vasant Rtu (MAdhav, spring season - flowers and all), then the Shaiva route as we see most of them following, is winter in the Arctic :o



To me, the whole idea of calling Shiva a "transformation" of Krishna (the yogurt-milk analogy is what I am referring to) is quite problematic, to say the least.

It is in the Brahma-samhItA, that Govinda the milk turns into Shambhu the curds in order to create the material universe. As long as it is Govind and Shri , there is no creation. Shri is pure hlAdini only, and not a creative power as long as She remains Shri pure. Once they turn into Shambhu and Gauri, they cross that material boundary for the purpose of creation.

So we cannot blame GauDIyas for this except that they follow the Bramha-samhItA that Mahaprabhu found in a temple during His travel in South India.

Plus, this milk-into-curds (only a POV) is consistent with the fact that Shambhu is not a seperate Godhead, nor is Gauri as She is Shakti, PrakRti and the consort.

Another point: What is the VaishNav goal and what is the Shaiva goal?
If Shaivas do not care or believe in a VaikunTha , Golok , perhaps not even a Shivalok, then the transcendent means the crossing of the virAj river (end of saMsaar ) , but not necessarily entering the VaikunThas. So their story really begins from this virAj river. In that case, what is wrong with what Bramha samhtA says as long as Shaivas say there is no eternal Govind? :) Their story begins from the curds and says no milk exists OR Bramha-samhItA is simply not applicable. N/A.

No one denies that the curds is also Supreme :) Not even the VaishNavs.

* In RAdhA-sahastranAma, the names of UmA, ramA, vAni are listed as they are Her. i.e. She (RAdhA) is UmA(Gauri, parvati), and vANi (Saraswati). This can be taken as RAdhA "becomes" all of these (from the GauDIya POV).
This shows the consorts are not independent Shaktis.
However, this is typical of SahastranAm stotras, as is with the Rg Ved, to say they are one.



om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya ~

philosoraptor
22 January 2013, 05:09 PM
Only a subset of these will tell friends - "don't go to Shiva, the path is rocky OR you will not reach" , but these people also have good intentions from their side. The only thing is,

a) either they do not have the big picture, and other GauDIyas may apologetically say that they are kanishTHa adhikAris or neophytes, don't pay attention.

OR

b) they are concerned that their friend is travelling on a barren road and will not stay focused. They cannot help compare the glories of shravaNam kirtanam vishnoh smaraNam... to the typical Shaiva path.

I agree that the two paths (established by sadhu sanga only) are very different. The sceneries are strikingly different, but the Shaiva scenery must suit the Shaivas so lets leave them alone.

People who engage in telling others they should not go the modern-day Shaiva route, sincerely think that if VaishNav route / KRshNa bhakti is Vasant Rtu (MAdhav, spring season - flowers and all), then the Shaiva route as we see most of them following, is winter in the Arctic :o

Pranams,

What if someone is a Shaivite, but he worships Shiva according to the standard of bhakti taught in the bhAgavata purANa and according to rasika devotees like rUpa gosvAmI? Are you saying this would be perfectly acceptable according to orthodox gauDIya vaiShNavism?



It is in the Brahma-samhItA, that Govinda the milk turns into Shambhu the curds in order to create the material universe. As long as it is Govind and Shri , there is no creation. Shri is pure hlAdini only, and not a creative power as long as She remains Shri pure. Once they turn into Shambhu and Gauri, they cross that material boundary for the purpose of creation.

So we cannot blame GauDIyas for this except that they follow the Bramha-samhItA that Mahaprabhu found in a temple during His travel in South India.

Plus, this milk-into-curds (only a POV) is consistent with the fact that Shambhu is not a seperate Godhead, nor is Gauri as She is Shakti, PrakRti and the consort.

According to shruti, brahman is changeless and always transcendental to prakRiti, mAyA, etc. See for example Rig veda saMhitA 10.90.1, bRihadAraNyaka upaniShad 4.2.4, and chAndogya upaniShad 8.7.1. The point here is, when such an entity takes avatAra, His supremacy, Lordliness, etc are uncompromised. He does not associate with matter even when He appears in the world of matter.

Now, the question becomes this: is shiva, according to you the Lord "crossing the material boundry" for the purpose of creation, fully transcendental and thus equal in every way to the supreme brahman aka nArAyaNa? Or is he not? If he is not, then he cannot be brahman, and if he is, then this view isn't exactly orthodox Vaishnavism.



Another point: What is the VaishNav goal and what is the Shaiva goal?


In my opinion, this is not relevant. There are even vaishnavas who do not understand the goal of unadulterated, one-pointed devotion, and they worship the Lord for temporary benefits. Sri Krishna lists four classes of devotees in the gItA 7.16-18 and grants even the magnanimous nature of those worshiping Him for less lofty goals. Thus it should also be for shiva, if as you say shiva is just another form of nArAyaNa.

regards,

Jogesh
22 January 2013, 07:37 PM
Tidbits on Brahma Samhita

Brahma-samhita is a purely Gaudiya shastra. It is only the 5th chapter of a work supposed to have 100 chapters, found by Sri Chaitanya on his visit to the Adi Keshava Perumal temple at Tiruvattur in Tamil Nadu near Tiruvanantapuram on the Kerala border. If it was found at a Sri Vaishnava temple, then why don't the Sri Vaishnavas recognize it at all, what-so-ever? The people there have no history or legend about Sri Chaitanya finding that book there. They know nothing about it. There seems to be no objective evidence about Brahma Samhita. Really there is nothing to suggest that it is accepted by any but Gaudiyas.

According to Edward Dimock:

"It is clear the fifth book, at least, of the Brahma-samhitaa, is a Vaisnava-sahajiya text. For example: "The lotus of a thousand petals is named Gokula, the dwelling-place of the Lord." The "lotus of a thousand petals" is Taantric and Sahajiyaa terminology for the seat of bliss, which in microcosmic physiology is the brain. That it is also called Gokul (a dwelling place of Krsna) is held by later Bengali Vaisnava-sahajiyaas. Although the rest of the chapter is free from references that may called specifically Vaisnava, it is full of references which are Taantric. For example, verses 3-10 treat the Taantric yantra, and speak of Siva as lingam and Sakti, Siva's female counterpart or consort, as yoni. This concept of the metaphysical character of sexual union is basic to the sahajiyaas, and all sects oriented toward the "left-hand" Taantra".


Shyam Chand Mukherji (Univ. of Calcutta [1966]):

Brahma Samhitaa - It is a Vaisnava Taantra . Like many Vaisnava works, it was current in South India. It is said that Sri-Caitanya brought this to Bengal from the south in the beginning of the 15th century A.D. The present MS, written in Newari script bears the date 315 in the Newari era, which is equivalent to 1195 A.D. It may be observed here that this Taantric work was not only extant in Nepal, but also in Bengal. The work is also known as Visnurahasya, or 'the secrets of the worship of Visnu'. Colophon of folio 13B, records it as Visnuprokta Samhitaa .

Some have suggested that Brahma-samhita is originally a Nimbarki-text...

And lastly, and some may find hard ....

Sundarananda Vidyavinoda (the leading scholar of Gaudiya Math during the time of Bhaktisiddhanta )tells us that although Kaviraja Gosvami narrates in his Caitanya-caritamrta that Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu found the text of Brahma-samhita being recited at the Adi Kesava temple of Tiruvattar, that it was actually Sri Caitanya who wrote the Brahma-samhita in order to give support to His own conception of highest ecstatic love.

namaskar

smaranam
23 January 2013, 05:28 AM
|| om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya ~ ||


Pranams,

What if someone is a Shaivite, but he worships Shiva according to the standard of bhakti taught in the bhAgavata purANa and according to rasika devotees like rUpa gosvAmI? Are you saying this would be perfectly acceptable according to orthodox gauDIya vaiShNavism?

praNAm

There is one spiritual leader that says worshipping SadAshiva is perfectly fine - Jagadguru KRpALuJi MahArAj. A Radha-ite GV (Barsana Dham). We have his follower on HDF - Ranjit/Ranjeet i think.

Acc to the standards of bhakti ? Yes.
Rup Goswami style ? rasik ? Perhaps not applicable. N/A.
Acc. to orthodox GV? if someone wants to worship Sadashiva, s/he is not a GV or V at all.

Mahaprabhu convinced many about KRshNa bhakti for their own good, except for Murari Gupta who stood firm - he was a Ram bhakta. Mahaprabhu was happy with this also, and said "This is my Hanuman." Murari Gupta is Hanuman in Gaura lila.

He would try to convince, but never impose.



According to shruti, brahman is changeless and always transcendental to prakRiti, mAyA, etc.

agreed. However, Brahman is free to co-direct leelas with His Yoga Shakti as and when He likes. Difference: Pure Yoga shakti is in Brahman's control while Brahman remains transcendental despite Her association, whereas worldly Jivas are in the avidya-maya's control (the reverse).

Now, i do not want to get into debates. Currently at least, it is nice to be five, walking barefoot in the green grass of Vraj.


Now, the question becomes this: is shiva, according to you the Lord "crossing the material boundry" for the purpose of creation, fully transcendental and thus equal in every way to the supreme brahman aka nArAyaNa? Or is he not?


Acc. to me, Shiva remains transcendental of course, while creating, but perhaps adds a bit of getting-angry Rudra-like leela here and there as and when needed ?
-- like BalrAm (Ananta Shesh) does on occasion to do good -
in VRndAvan (making Yamuna change course - merely a leela),
and in Dwarka, Hastinapur (Samba's wedding, etc.)

I think those were wrong words to use "crossing the boundary" which caused confusion?


If he is not, then he cannot be brahman, and if he is, then this view isn't exactly orthodox Vaishnavism.

Shiva/Shambhu is transcendental, Brahman and GV is not violated. Because GV only cares about Govind and rasa of KRshNa tattva. Ishvara paramah KRshNa...

You can certainly have the cake and eat it too. Here is how:

Please see my comment above on joining hands with Yoga Shakti or YogmAyA. He can remain Brahman i.e. transcendental even after the fact, untouched by mahAmAyA (avidyA-mAyA) unlike the worldly jivas.

This is how KRshNa walks in the world. Associates with Yogmaya (not Her avidya counterpart) but always untouched, transcendental.

So, when Govind-milk becomes Shambhu-curds acc. to Brahma Samhita, it is a creation leela we are talking about from the VaishNav standpoint. Milk to Curds does not mean falling into the maya trap.

Govind, the all-blissful, only engages in pure transcendental leela in Vrajamandal. For creation He changes form / uses an expansion - svaMsha , whichever way you look at it.

However, even VaishNav acharyas (including GV) say that SadAshiva is always (sadA) transcendental and auspicious (Shiva). This SadAshiva is perpetually glorifying Radha KRshNa or KRshNa thru ashtaka, sahastranamas, answering Parvati's qns about KRshNa leela and bhakti. When it comes to creation, there is Yog, and hence vidya maya or Yogmaya (VishNu mAya) comes into picture.
YA devi sarva bhUteshu vishNumAyeti shabditA
namastasyai namastasyai namastasyai namo namah:

This jiva has conveyed what she thinks is the case - hopefully Mukunda has supplied enough buddhi for the purpose.


Ishwar paramah KRshNa
sacchidAnanda vigraha
anAdirAdirGovinda
sarva-kAraNa-kAraNam
... Govindam Adi Purusham, Tam aham bhajAmi _/\_

om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya ~ om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya ~

brahma jijnasa
23 January 2013, 08:38 PM
The point is that this sentence is a phala stuti, and all phala stutis are arthavada. This is accepted even by Gaudiyas
It is disingenuous to accept all other phala stutis as arthavada but take this one literally.

You say: "This is accepted even by Gaudiyas"
That's news to me. Can you point out somewhere in the writings of the Gaudiya Vaishnavas example of this?

As far as I'm acquainted with the philosophy of Gaudiya Vaishnavas, none of the verses from Padma Purana, Brahmanda Purana and Garga Samhita that I mentioned in the post
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?p=97737#post97737

are explained as a figure of speech.

regards

brahma jijnasa
23 January 2013, 08:43 PM
I pointed out references from shruti describing faults in Lord Vishnu
There was nothing in your reply about Shiva and Vishnu being the same.

As to the status of Lord Shiva and Lord Vishnu, I think I was clear enough in this:
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?p=97790#post97790


Regarding faults in Lord Vishnu.
I would not comment directly those sruti texts because I have not seen Vaishnava commentaries on them. But I can say that they should not be interpreted contrary to what is commonly spoken of the Lord Vishnu.

Is there something that is not under the control of Lord Vishnu? Like there was something in the nature of Lord Vishnu out of his control. According to Vaishnavas nature of Lord Vishnu is not something that would be separate from His very self. That is to say that His nature, His power and His body or form are of the same nature as his soul (self). Of course the soul of the Lord Vishnu is Brahman or Paramatma. Being so, His nature, His power and His body or form are of the same nature as Brahman, they are Brahman itself. To say that Lord Vishnu can not control his nature would be like saying "Gold is not golden" or "Ice is not icy".

Can Lord Vishnu be tired? See above what I said about the nature of Lord Vishnu. As if He has a material body whose strength can be depleted. Vaishnavas do not accept the notion that Lord Vishnu has a material body. The body or form of the Lord is his soul (self), Brahman itself or Paramatma. This is also confirmed in the scriptures.

That what has been said in the texts should not be interpreted contrary to all this.

regards

philosoraptor
23 January 2013, 10:37 PM
I for one, am intrigued at the premise of the shatapatha braahmaNa describing "faults" in viShNu, and would like to study this more in-depth in the near future. However, I'm still working on finishing up mahAnArAyaNa upaniShad in response to Omkar's claims that it is an "obviously Shaivite" text, which I am glad he said because it prompted me to move it up on my reading list.

brahma jijnasa
24 January 2013, 02:08 AM
However, I'm still working on finishing up mahAnArAyaNa upaniShad in response to Omkar's claims that it is an "obviously Shaivite" text, which I am glad he said because it prompted me to move it up on my reading list.

Where is this discussion taking place?

regards

philosoraptor
24 January 2013, 11:03 PM
Pranams Smaranam,

I appreciate your willingness to continue trying to clarify the GV position regarding Sadaashiva and Vishnu. Having said that, I think you can appreciate that your statements remain ambiguous and equivocal to the non-gaudiya-vaishnava. The whole point of philosophy is to clearly explain spiritual truths to the extent that this is possible. Since actions have consequences, one must act in the proper fashion, and in order to do that, one has to have right knowledge so that one knows how one should act. While recognizing that some phenomena cannot be completely understood by a finite mind, it should be possible to explain some basic points so as to give one the framework to act in the right way. Case in point: Who is God? If one fails to identify who God is, and instead meditates on an entity who is not God, then his meditation will not have the desired fruit, namely emancipation from the world of birth and rebirth and promotion to that world that is beyond all this. Thus, it seems quite reasonable that any philosophical system whose practitioners seek converts must have clear answers on points like these.

In the shrutis and in the gIta, three basic classes of entities are recognized: (1) the Lord Himself, aka brahman aka paramAtmA aka bhagavAn, (2) the conscious living entities (the jIva-s), (3) the unconscious entities (matter, time, etc). The point is, there is no "in between" entity recognized in shAstra that is God but not God. So our statements clarifying who is what must be clear. The Lord is "one without a second." There is no other like Him. The jIva-s can be conditioned, liberated, or eternally liberated, but all are still jIva-s. Lord Shiva must fall in one of these two categories, or else there must be explicit shAstric pramANa postulating the existence of some in-between category to which he belongs. The "brahma-saMhitA" accepted by shrI chaitanya and his followers is, I am sure you realize, only accepted as pramaana by that group. Otherwise I cannot think of any explicit pramaana in shruti placing Shiva in some sort of "in-between" category. Therefore, is Shiva really bhagavAn, or is he a jIvAtma? If he is bhagavAn, then he transcends the influence of prakRiti, his worship is equal to worship of any form of nArAyaNa, and it should be possible to worship him in the same mood with which one worships Sri Krishna. If he is a jIvAtma, then he cannot grant liberation, except perhaps as an accessory to the worship of nArAyaNa (by bestowing his grace as a devotee of nArAyaNa).

Below, let me point out the contradictory nature of your statements on this subject:



There is one spiritual leader that says worshipping SadAshiva is perfectly fine - Jagadguru KRpALuJi MahArAj.



Acc. to orthodox GV? if someone wants to worship Sadashiva, s/he is not a GV or V at all.

Surely you can see that these statements are contradictory. If Sadaashiva is same as Naaraayana, then why is one who worships him "not a GV or V at all?" If, as you say, one can be a Raam-bhakta and still be a GV, then it should be possible to be a Shiva-bhakta and still be a GV, if Shiva is indeed a form of Krishna, yes?

Again, let me point out another example of how your remarks seem contradictory:



Acc. to me, Shiva remains transcendental of course, while creating, but perhaps adds a bit of getting-angry Rudra-like leela here and there as and when needed ?
-- like BalrAm (Ananta Shesh) does on occasion to do good -
in VRndAvan (making Yamuna change course - merely a leela),
and in Dwarka, Hastinapur (Samba's wedding, etc.)

Now, in shruti, it is clearly stated that the Lord is beyond tamas and rAjas. He is not affected by these qualities at all. This does not prelude Him from getting "angry," as for example when He becomes enraged with rAvaNa at the latter's mistreatment of sItA-devI, or when He becomes enraged with Hiranyakashipu regarding the latter's mistreatment of prahlAd. But the point is that when He displays these episodes of transcendental anger, He is still acting according to His own nature, and not being influenced by the guNas of prakRiti (tamas, rAjas, etc). Now, if Sadaashiva is really Naaraayana Himself, then his getting "angry" should not in any way adulterate or make himself, less than himself. So, when you argue that Sadaashiva is Lord Himself, but with a little anger thrown in "as needed," then you have to answer - is transcendental Lord + anger somehow less than or different from the Lord Himself? If so, how, given that He transcends the modes? If not, then why imply that his worship is somehow less legitimate than any other Vaishnava worship?



Please see my comment above on joining hands with Yoga Shakti or YogmAyA. He can remain Brahman i.e. transcendental even after the fact, untouched by mahAmAyA (avidyA-mAyA) unlike the worldly jivas.

This is how KRshNa walks in the world. Associates with Yogmaya (not Her avidya counterpart) but always untouched, transcendental.

So, when Govind-milk becomes Shambhu-curds acc. to Brahma Samhita, it is a creation leela we are talking about from the VaishNav standpoint. Milk to Curds does not mean falling into the maya trap.


So here again, you seem to be saying that Shiva's position remains transcendental despite acting as a creator. Yet again, you seem to be making a case that Krishna is still different by virtue of not acting in such a capacity:



Govind, the all-blissful, only engages in pure transcendental leela in Vrajamandal. For creation He changes form / uses an expansion - svaMsha , whichever way you look at it.

However, even VaishNav acharyas (including GV) say that SadAshiva is always (sadA) transcendental and auspicious (Shiva). This SadAshiva is perpetually glorifying Radha KRshNa or KRshNa thru ashtaka, sahastranamas, answering Parvati's qns about KRshNa leela and bhakti. When it comes to creation, there is Yog, and hence vidya maya or Yogmaya (VishNu mAya) comes into picture.

So again, if one worships this Sadaashiva who always glorifies Radha-Krishna, is his worship equal to worship of any other Vishnu-tattva or not?

shrIkRiShNArpaNamastu

smaranam
25 January 2013, 04:31 AM
PraNAm Philosoraptor

Sorry if i sounded ambiguous. I apologize.

1. My original post - in response to brama-jijn~asa, to which you responded initially, was a personal anubhav/understanding, plus i wanted to share the bhagwat katha piece about Shiva and KRshNa's names.

Personally i do not go into depth about the different Shivas (sadA, rudra etc.) as i think it depends on the sAdhak whether s/he is seeking the grace of sadAshiv or rudra. Bhakti can be sattvic rajasic or tamasic depending on the seeker's temperament.

That was FYI

2. Now that we are talking about GV (when the milk-curds qn was raised),

have you see this? (explains SadAShiva and Shambhu/Rudra) (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=37549&postcount=1)

and this? The avatAr chart (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=41221&postcount=24)

Where are you GramesJi?

3. Transcendental Lord + Leela anger = transcendental , but i have no experience with Rudra or KAli worship as such, so i cannot say anything --- more than what VaishNav acharyas have said.

4. Shiva will grant moksha, however, the GV goal is different, that of prema ras, and that is why you have full and partial expansions of BhagvAn -

KRshNa(VAsudev) --- BalarAm(SankarshaN) --- Ananta Shesha ---- Shankar (Shiva) something like that.

It is not black and white. Not with GauDIya siddhAnta.

SadAshiva is looked upon for bestowing grace to advance in prema. He is the highest premi, highest VaishNav. However, Who is the preetam ? Govind of course.

ShishupAl, pUtnA and KauMsa were also granted moksha.

5. Mahaprabhu was convincing Murari Gupta about KRshNa bhakti, because it is the highest acc. to Him, higher than RAm bhakti. So what to speak of Shiva?

5. No GauDIya worships BalarAm or Shesha or Sudarshan Chakra or Aniruddha or Pradyumna so why Shiva? NArAyaN in VaikuNtha is not their real lover, nor is Dwarkadheesh! Only and only vrajendra KRshNa - boliye Bhagvan Gopal KRshNa Kanhaiyaa ki jay. What to speak of Shiva?

When i said "Anyone who worships SadAshiva is not a GV or V at all" ,
the above, point 5. is what i meant, although it must have sounded like circular logic at first.
First we have to understand who GauDIya VaishNavs are, what they stand for, what their goal is. AnadiJi has also explained this in his threads.


So again, if one worships this Sadaashiva who always glorifies Radha-Krishna, is his worship equal to worship of any other Vishnu-tattva or not?

shrIkRiShNArpaNamastu

Yes, technically, if the goal is moksha only, but not in terms of bhAv, and certainly not equal to worshipping Radha-KRshNa. Please see points 5, 4, 3, 2, 1.

Hope that covers everything.


_/\_

|| shri kRshNARpaNamastu ||

philosoraptor
25 January 2013, 01:54 PM
Pranams Smaranam,

I must say that, at the outset, the fault is not yours for having to clarify this concept. Frankly, I think it is a bit unclear as originally formulated, i.e. that Shiva is a transformation of Vishnu, and is equal to Vishnu and yet not equal to Vishnu. Truly, I think GV followers have a tough job with this one.

I noticed that you brought up the issue of (1) prema-bhakti versus moksha and also (2) Krishna worship as opposed to worship of other forms of Krishna. Sri Vaishnavas also place great emphasis on the importance of developing pure devotion. For the purposes of our discussion, let us stipulate that when I say moksha, mukti, liberation, etc I am referring to the attainment of that stage in which one is promoted beyond the realm of matter and is engaged 100% in serving Him, and not just in the mere cessation of material suffering. Let us also dispense with (2), since that is a separate issue, and frankly it deserves a thorough discussion of its own. To the best of my knowledge, even the most Krishna-centric GV will admit that one can worship any form of nArAyaNa and attain pure love of Him.

Now, a few points here about the concept of "nArAyaNa." GV's often refer to a "four-armed form of nArAyaNa," that is they equate the name nArAyaNa to a specific form of the Lord like four-armed form lying on milk-ocean. However, in shruti, nArAyaNa is taken to refer to the brahman who is the origin of all, the indweller of all chetanas and achetanas, and the parama puruSha of countless limbs and qualities who is addressed in the puruSha-sukta. This is an important point to understand, because SriVaishnavas and (presumably) others whose philosophy is developed on the foundation of the upaniShads, do not think of nArAyaNa as a specific form of the Lord, but rather as The Lord Himself, in His unqualified and infinite glory, whose very form is a sensory-overload experience for devotees like Arjuna who can behold it. This Lord takes forms like Krishna, Raama, etc so that He can interact with His devotees who would otherwise be unable to approach Him. This is another endearing feature of the Lord - His accessibility. In spite of His indescribable infinite glories and His unique states as the creator and sustainer of everything, He can appear as the village boy next door and tempt you to steal butter with Him... and all His infinite glories are still there, uncompromised!

Now, when I say that worship of any form of nArAyaNa is efficacious towards the attainment of the ultimate end, viz the liberated state in which one attains pure devotion, it should become clear as to why. Because His unconcealed glories make direct darshan and interaction difficult, the standard in most cases is for devotees to worship Him in other forms, like four-armed Vishnu on milk-ocean, or as Rama or Krishna or Venkateshwara. And there is nothing wrong with this, for it is the Lord Himself receiving the worship, no matter what form He takes.

Now, when you say that Sadaashiva is a form of nArAyaNa, then it implies that this is the Lord Himself, not a separate being. His worship should be just as efficacious as worship of Rama or Krishna or Venkateshwara. Just as it is not correct to say that Venkateshwara worship is somehow less than Rama worship, it would therefore be incorrect to say in that situation that Shiva worship is somehow less than Rama worship. The point is, he cannot be nArAyaNa Himself and yet be somehow less than nArAyaNa! The links you provided indicate that Shiva is not regarded as jIva. Therefore, he is Brahman according to GV. If one can get pure bhakti through the worship of any other form of nArAyaNa, then he should get it by worship of Shiva in that case.

Therein lies the problem, because Shiva is a devotee of Vishnu in pramaanas we both accept as authoritative. His status as a devotee is unquestioned, and there is no explicit differentiation between a "Sadaashiva" who is a form of Vishnu and another "Shiva" who is a devotee of Vishnu in any mainstream scriptures. As an FYI, great souls like Ananta-sesha/Balaraama, Garuda, Vishvaksena, etc are not regarded as "expansions of the Lord" but as nitya-siddhas by other Vaishnavas.

Please note that I am just "thinking out loud" and have no desire to offend.

jai shri kRiShNa!