Question containing elements of Vaishnava and Shaiva

[Jainarayan]

I came across this @ Stephen Knapp's site. I am wondering what the Vaishnava view on this really is.



Shiva works for the benefit of everyone, and tries to help the living beings make spiritual advancement. This is why he has his own line of disciplic succession. This is also why he says to the sons of King Pracinibarhi, “Any person who is surrendered to the Supreme Personality of God, Lord Krishna, the controller of everything, is very dear to me.”1

...

“A person who is directly surrendered to Lord Krishna, or Vishnu, in unalloyed devotional service is immediately promoted to the spiritual planets. I, Lord Shiva, and other demigods attain these planets only after the destruction of the material world. You are all devotees of the Lord, and as such I appreciate that you are as respectable as the Supreme Personality of Godhead Himself. I know in this way that the devotees also respect me and that I am dear to them. Thus no one can be as dear to the devotees as I am.”2

In this way, a devotee of Krishna does not disrespect Lord Shiva, but worships him as the greatest of devotees of Lord Krishna. A Krishna bhakta also prays to Lord Shiva, but asks Shiva to assist him in attaining the favor of Lord Krishna, and not merely for material benefits. As we find in the Tulasi Ramayana (Uttara-Kanda, Doha 45), Lord Rama says “With joined palms I lay before you another secret doctrine: without adoring Sankara (Lord Shiva) man cannot attain devotion to Me.” So in this way, Shiva can assist us in attaining devotion to Lord Krishna and His expansions.

CHAPTER NOTES
1. Srimad-Bhagavatam 4.24.22-28
2. Ibid., 4.24.29-30



Considering this line:

In this way, a devotee of Krishna does not disrespect Lord Shiva, but worships him as the greatest of devotees of Lord Krishna. A Krishna bhakta also prays to Lord Shiva, but asks Shiva to assist him in attaining the favor of Lord Krishna, and not merely for material benefits.

On my altar I have a small murti of Shiva, Parvati, Ganesha; Maa Lakshmi; pictures of Lord Vishnu; Maa Kali and Maa Durga; Narasimhadeva; Maa Saraswati; Sri Sri Radha Krishna and Sri Rama and Sitadevi, though my prayers are to Sri Sri Radha Krishna and Sri Rama.

How do you incorporate prayer to Lord Shiva into daily prayers, puja, or aarti to Lord Krishna? Is a simple stotra or two, the Mahāmṛtyuṃjaya Mantra, the Shiva gayatri and/or Om namah Shivaya the right way to do it?

I've been told that it's fine to honor the deities, but prayer should be focused to Lord Krishna (which I do). But I think (just my gut feeling) that even being Vaishnava, I should include a small stotra to the deities. Maybe I am wrong, but I feel They are being ignored otherwise, though I understand that by watering the roots of the tree (Sri Krishna) the branches and leaves (the other deities) are also watered.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

If one continues to view kṛṣṇa or śiva or any of the exponents of para-brahman as jīva-s¹ , one will miss who they really are. They are not a bundle of bones, of flesh, or cells within a frame. They are in fact the highest expression of Divinity - rules do not apply.

They are in fact ātmavān¹. If this is true, then there is only infinity and wholeness as their ~personality~. If they are infinite then who is the devotee and who is the devoted ?


praṇām

words

jīva - is a living being; a being that cycles through birth and death. It is para-brahman that makes a jīva possible yet is beyond this limit.
ātmavān is equal to śrutipāramgataḥ meaning resides (gataḥ) + farther than , beyond (pāram) + that which is heard or communicated (śruti)

[Jainarayan]

Namaste.

Thanks. It seems this is overthinking and anthropomorphizing the Supreme. Maybe too much reading is no good.

[Rasa1976]

How do you incorporate prayer to Lord Shiva into daily prayers, puja, or aarti to Lord Krishna? Is a simple stotra or two, the Mahāmṛtyuṃjaya Mantra, the Shiva gayatri and/or Om namah Shivaya the right way to do it?.

As one who has had just a modicum of Vaisnava training, a little voice recently told me that Stephen Knapp's viewpoint isn't correct. I looked at his book on the so-called hierarchy of "demigods" in relation to Lord Krishna too (I forgot the name of it). From a doctrinal viewpoint, I now prefer to take them as different aspects of the Supreme, rather than subordinates of Vishnu or Krishna. This certainly includes Shiva.

Knapp's version clearly does not check out with the Svetasvatara Upanishad. In fact, you can even find him quoting the (same) text replacing the word "rudra" (in the original sanskrit text) with "Supreme Personality of Godhead", used by Iskconites to mean Vishnu or Krishna. There are other threads on here covering the same subject I'm sure you can find without much trouble.

Aside from all this doctrinal stuff however, it all seems to boil down to a matter of chastity and sentiment. How many ista-devs do you need? Why not call Shiva a demigod if you are in love with Krishna even though it is not true? Does everything have to be based on a stone tablet, or script written in stone? Are you a stoner?

Well, if that is the case then there is always the Gita, which at least is a text that seems to abhor the worship of other Gods (though I'm sure the Shaivites have one too).

[Jainarayan]

Namaste Rasa, thanks for another perspective. :)

I'm not Gaudiya or ISKCON, but I've personalized or focused, if you will, the Supreme in the form of Vishnu/Krishna. Yet I still feel there is a reason to recognize and honor other deities, not as subordinates, but as expansions and aspects. I can't quite put my finger on it, or reconcile it. I think it's something that is going to have to hit me suddenly.

[Rasa1976]

Namaste Rasa, thanks for another perspective. :)

I'm not Gaudiya or ISKCON, but I've personalized or focused, if you will, the Supreme in the form of Vishnu/Krishna. Yet I still feel there is a reason to recognize and honor other deities, not as subordinates, but as expansions and aspects. I can't quite put my finger on it, or reconcile it. I think it's something that is going to have to hit me suddenly.

I think you're right. When we meet the absolute truth face-to-face, it will likely erase all the conceptions we had to begin with.

[Friend from the West]

Namaste,
Since a recent thread from Shian, regarding Sri Hanuman and the Primordial Supreme have been wanting to respond and have considered some things and perhaps wrestled with some things that this question raised. With this in mind, thank you so much Touched by The Lord for the Thread and yours, Rasa's and Vajvan's thoughts.
VajvanJi, if you would, please expound on your "If they are infinite than who is the devotee and who is the devoted?"

Om Shanti
FFTW

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté


VajvanJi, if you would, please expound on your "If they are infinite than who is the devotee and who is the devoted?"

Yes, I will be happy to; this will come in a future post in the uttara folder called svadharma. I will offer some ideas that will (hopefully) bridge the gap here and take us even a bit further on this whole matter. It will require some open-minded thinking on behalf of the HDF reader.

Yet, for now this notion of the infinite + devotee + devoted...
The Supreme is just that. The seer, the seen, the devoted and that that which devotion flows to, are on an infinite level, all seemlessly connected.

Let's say I walk into a jewelry store. I see all kinds of gold earrings, gold rings, gold ornaments - I see all diversity. Then a gold-smith walks in, what does he see ? Only gold. The diversity of objects for him is only the play-and-display on how many different ways this most pliable metal can be cast.

Now we take anyone who has had the application of the oilment of knowledge applied to his eyes, mind, intellect. S/he looks about and what does s/he see ? A world of the infinite, the world of the Supreme that plays in diversity. It expresses Itself as all things, yet to the ignorant, they see only diversity, multiplicity.
So for the wise, where is the difference between devoted, devotee, the infinite and the Supreme ? There is no line of demarcation.

praṇām

[Jainarayan]

Namaste yajvan.


hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté



Let's say I walk into a jewelry store. I see all kinds of gold earrings, gold rings, gold ornaments - I see all diversity. Then a gold-smith walks in, what does he see ? Only gold. The diversity of objects for him is only the play-and-display on how many different ways this most pliable metal can be cast.

Simple and elegant explanation! :)


Now we take anyone who has had the application of the oilment of knowledge applied to his eyes, mind, intellect. S/he looks about and what does s/he see ? A world of the infinite, the world of the Supreme that plays in diversity. It expresses Itself as all things, yet to the ignorant, they see only diversity, multiplicity.

So for the wise, where is the difference between devoted, devotee, the infinite and the Supreme ? There is no line of demarcation.

praṇām

So, is this the Divine Sight Sri Krishna gave to Arjuna to see His Universal Form?

[Friend from the West]

Namaste to all,

VajvanJi, thank you taking time for response. Priceless.

Thank you.

I will enjoy remainder of thread.

OM Shanti

FFTW