Pranams

Quote Originally Posted by brahma jijnasa View Post
[FONT="Times New Roman"][SIZE="2"]Namaste philosoraptor
Gaudiyas do not have that feeling. You'll have the feeling if you suppose that Brahma-saḿhitā 5.45 says something contrary to many other statements of immutability of the Lord. It simply does not make sense. Why would Brahma-saḿhitā teach some nonsense?
Why indeed. Lots of smRiti texts teach "some nonsense." There is the padma purANa in which Lord Krishna decorates His body with ash and takes shaivite initiation (alluded to by omkar previously), linga purANa which teaches that brahmA and viShNu were fighting over who is supreme and were both humbled by the immense size of the shivalinga, manu dharma-shAstra which teaches that a women can be abandoned if she gives birth only to daughters, etc. The "why" of it can be attributed to human agency if you wish, but the bottom line is that it does happen. So why should we accept without question the authority of the gauDIya vaiShNava brahma-saMhitA when it teaches a non-vedAntic doctrine of brahman transforming Himself and becoming someone else?

However there are energy or nature of the Lord. Examples of transformation of energy or nature can be seen daily. There is no need to be a Vedic philosopher to be able to see this.
Examples of energy transforming, yes. Examples of brahman transforming, no.

Are we now a little disingenuous? or what?
No, I'm just correcting your misunderstanding of my words. I clearly said that "it is irrefutably obvious that (1) the brahma-saMhitA 5.45 is singling out shambhu in some way by describing him as a transformation of the Lord, a classification which is not given any other deva, and which is not found to describe jiivas in general." It was you who said, "Are we really so, as you say "irrefutably", sure that śambhu of Brahma-saḿhitā 5.45 must be only Shiva?"

How can it be "it is not the case ... by virtue of being a jIva, since other jIvas are not described as such"?
Because, as mentioned several times previously, the jIva is not described as a transformation of brahman in vedAntic texts. Thus, it is not believable that shambu is only described as a transformation on the grounds that he is a jIva, for whether or not he is a jIva, the description of him being a "transformation" of brahman still contradicts the vedAntic principle of brahman's unchanging nature.

If word śambhu of Brahma-saḿhitā 5.45 can be at least Brahmā, who is a jiva for sure, then why Brahmā would not be singled out too? So we no longer have only trimurti Shiva, also called guṇa-avatāra Shiva, who is singled out.
I think you are a bit confused. I am not contesting the idea that brahmA can be referred to as shambhu. But everyone agrees that shambhu in BrS 5.45 refers to Shiva (whether guNa-avatAra or sadAshiva), and hence, my point that the BrS 5.45 only describes this Shiva as a "transformation" of the Lord.

I can give you another reason of why Trimurti Shiva is not to be singled out:
Gaudiyas say that like some jiva can become a demigod Agni Indra or Brahma, so it can become Trimurti Shiva. This view that some jiva can become Trimurti Shiva shows the universality of principle of "milk is transformed into curd" to be applied universally to all the jivas because many jivas will eventually, sooner or later, become Trimurti Shiva!
This is nothing more than unwarranted speculation. The point remains that BrS only describes Shiva as a transformation. The text does not describe any other deva as a transformation. Hence, my point that BrS singles out shambhu....

Yes, Trimurti (guṇa-avatāra) Shiva indeed is somehow "more 'one' with nArAyaNa than the other devas" if you look at it from the point of view of acintya-bhedābheda-tattva "inconceivable simultaneously one and different" philosophy.
In that case, you should have no objection whatsoever to a Shaivite identifying this guNa-avatAra Shiva with the Supreme Lord and worshiping him for liberation.

regards,