Re: A relatively new thought on Shiva/Vishnu tattwa
Namaste AmeyAtma ji,
Thank you for the reply! It was nice to hear from you after a long time... was my pleasure.
Coming to the topic on hand, I totally understand what you are trying to say.... that paramatma is formless. It is all the lila of the paramatma that he manifests in various forms of himself.
You see, I'm offering here a 'theory', if unclear, I would like to recap the salient points:
i) First of all, this theory of mine is based on existing principles. I have formulated the theory that none of the following principles are violated:
a. Shiva and Vishnu are the same.
b. Shiva and Vishnu are not the same. (For example, one of them takes 'Tulsi', the other 'Vilva'. They reside in their own unique worlds).
c. One of them is considered 'anaadi', that is not having an origin. While the other (Vishnu/Vamana) is thought to be the son of Aditi and brother of 'Devendra'.
d. There could be only 1 paramatma.
e. Vishnu takes avataras but Shiva does not. Whereas Shiva is eternally seen as a yogi, smearing ashes and in penance.
f. Many saints of either sect sang about their own lord but not the other.
... and possibly other principles like this.
So I am proposing a 'solution' that satisfies ALL of the above principles (does not violate any of them) -
a. To begin with, Shiva and Vishnu must have been part of the same parabrahman (the unmanifest being).
b. Then at some point, Shiva and Vishnu split from the parabrahman and took their own unique routes.
c. One of them took the 'human' route - that is took plethora of human births and elevated back to the supreme status again. The other remained unmanifest. (You can take either one of Shiva or Vishnu for either role, to satisfy sectarian views.)
d. The one who remained the unmanifest serves the role of paramatma. But the other role is potentially no less trivial.
e. To fill in their potential for taking/remaining within either mode (human/unmanifest), Shiva/Vishnu both do certain unique things - like Vishnu taking avataras and Shiva remaining yogic penance. (Shaivas can have equivalent views to replicate the theory from their part).
f. This is because the saints thought the other lord is 'trivial' owing to having human origin.
... And so the explanation goes... You need to fit-in factor a to f above with relevant questions presented above them. It may take a little bit of time to understand what I'm talking about, although in a nutshell, all I am saying is that, I'm violating NONE of the existing principles. If we fit-in pieces this way, perhaps we will be less or totally not 'sectarian'.
Please let me know what you think.
Many sincere regards,
Viraja
Last edited by Viraja; 14 March 2017 at 03:36 PM.
jai hanuman gyan gun sagar jai kapis tihu lok ujagar
Bookmarks