Re: LORd SIVA : A Gaudiya Vaisnava Perspective

[smaranam]

~~~~~

_/\_

om namah shivAya
om namo nArAyaNAya
om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya

[Kalicharan Tuvij]

I will like to offer some inputs here.
First, "parvat" means, apart from meaning mountain, "knot","joint", or "node". So if the "Trimurti Shiva" being discussed here is said to dwell on parvat, it only means that he is connected to vishva (world) through the node. It means, "Trimurti Shiva" contains within himself all world, in addition to being his "Sada Shiva" self, which resides in Samudra.
The use of parvat as thus is same as in Rig-Veda, where parvat denotes the barrier, or node, between any two realms in general.

Let me phrase this in the language of Veda. There are 11 Rudras. 9 of them are in fact all gods constituting vishva, that is, Prithivi and Dyo and Antariksha combined. 10 th Rudra is the original Rudra, or "Sada Shiva" being mentioned here. 11 th Rudra is the sum of all these 10 Rudras, who I see as none other than Shiva, of Hinduism. Here, of course, the 11th is being discussed as "Trimurti Shiva".

In fact Rig-Veda employs such scheme for Vasus and Maruts, too.

There is a lot of play in Sanskrit behind "Rudra", as it is most probably originally a neuter action noun, instead of being agent noun. That is, a term, "on par" with "Brahman".

I will, therefore, rather still like to call "Sada Shiva" as Rudra, and "Trimurti Shiva" as Shiva. As for the Vaishnavas, well, in the post Vedic age the mainstream approach has been to negate Rudra, and to assign a secondary status to Shiva. This, in addition to calling, again erroneously, Narayana or Vishnu same as Brahman, in essence.

[brahma jijnasa]

Namaste philosoraptor

so this further makes it difficult to accept this shambhu as a jIva
...
Note that the earlier verses of brahma-saMhitA definitely ascribe powers to this shambhu that are far beyond that of a jIva:

Now you are assuming that Śambhu of Brahma-saḿhitā 5.45 must be the same Śambhu of 5.8 and 5.10.
See what Jiva Gosvami says in Paramatma-sandarbha:

In the words of Brahma-samhita it is said that Lord Sadasiva is a direct expansion of Lord Visnu. However, the other siva, the demigod siva, is not a direct expansion of Lord Visnu. This is described in the following words of Brahma- samhita (5.8 and 5.10) where Lord Krsna's status as the original cause of all causes is described in these words:
niyatih sa rama devi
tat-priya tad-vasamvada

tal-lingam bhagavan sambhur
jyoti-rupah sanatanah ya yonih sa para saktih ity adi.

tasminn avirabhul linge
maha-visnuh ity ady-antam.

Lord Sadasiva is thus a direct expansion of Lord Visnu.

It seems that these are two different Śambhus! One of them is Lord Sadāśiva, while the other is the demigod Shiva, guṇa-avatāra.

very weak justification appears to be bedha-abedha philosophy, which somehow strangely applies more to shiva with respect to nArAyaNa than other devas with respect to nArAyaNa
...
I would not expect shiva to be any more "one" with nArAyaNa than the other devas
...
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.

Did you know what the dictionary says for śambhu?
Monier Williams Sanskrit-English Dictionary
śambhu
Name (also title or epithet):
of śiva
of brahmā
of a particular agni
of viṣṇu
of indra in the 10th manvantara

Are we really so, as you say "irrefutably", sure that śambhu of Brahma-saḿhitā 5.45 must be only Shiva?
Even if we look at the context, it seems to me that at least Brahmā can not be ruled out. Perhaps not even Agni and Indra. I would rule out Viṣṇu because of the principle of immutability, like you say "shruti describes Lord as unchanging".


Regarding Bhagavatam 12.10.22 and similar:

However, the above bhAgavatam verse speaks of non-differentiation in a very general sense, such as for example non-differentiation because the Lord is the indwelling paramAtman of all other living entities. It does not specifically single out shiva/shambhu, and so using this to explain why shiva can be described as "not a second Godhead" would lead to the conclusion that even brahmA and all other jIvas can be described as "not a second Godhead," which becomes mAyAvAda.

I only recognize one philosophy as germane to this discussion, and that is the philosophy of the Vedas and their supplementary texts. The nArAyaNa upaniShad which you quoted says:
...
There is no other way in which they are "one."

I think I was clear enough in my last post. According to Gaudiyas the oneness expressed in this verse is not necessarily due to "the Lord is the indwelling paramAtman of all other living entities". Neither is this Gaudiya view mayavada.
There are several Vaishnava sampradayas and each has a somewhat different philosophy. Each Vaishnava sampradaya would say that their philosophy is "the philosophy of the Vedas and their supplementary texts".

regards

[philosoraptor]

Pranams,

[FONT="Times New Roman"]
Now you are assuming that Śambhu of Brahma-saḿhitā 5.45 must be the same Śambhu of 5.8 and 5.10.

Would that not seem like a logical assumption, barring any internal textual evidence to the contrary?

See what Jiva Gosvami says in Paramatma-sandarbha:

In the words of Brahma-samhita it is said that Lord Sadasiva is a direct expansion of Lord Visnu. However, the other siva, the demigod siva, is not a direct expansion of Lord Visnu. This is described in the following words of Brahma- samhita (5.8 and 5.10) where Lord Krsna's status as the original cause of all causes is described in these words:
niyatih sa rama devi
tat-priya tad-vasamvada

tal-lingam bhagavan sambhur
jyoti-rupah sanatanah ya yonih sa para saktih ity adi.

tasminn avirabhul linge
maha-visnuh ity ady-antam.

Lord Sadasiva is thus a direct expansion of Lord Visnu.

It seems that these are two different Śambhus! One of them is Lord Sadāśiva, while the other is the demigod Shiva, guṇa-avatāra.

Very well, that at least clarifies shrI jIva gosvAmI's view on the subject. Thanks for the quote.

Did you know what the dictionary says for śambhu?
Monier Williams Sanskrit-English Dictionary
śambhu
Name (also title or epithet):
of śiva
of brahmā
of a particular agni
of viṣṇu
of indra in the 10th manvantara

Are we really so, as you say "irrefutably", sure that śambhu of Brahma-saḿhitā 5.45 must be only Shiva?
Even if we look at the context, it seems to me that at least Brahmā can not be ruled out. Perhaps not even Agni and Indra. I would rule out Viṣṇu because of the principle of immutability, like you say "shruti describes Lord as unchanging".

I believe I only said that it was "irrefutable" that the brahma-saMhitA was singling out shambhu as having a special relationship vis-a-vis nArAyaNa. In other words, it is not the case that he is described as a "transformation" of nArAyaNa by virtue of being a jIva, since other jIvas are not described as such. Thus far, the only answer you have provided or hinted at is that shambu the jIva is specially empowered in some way that other empowered jIvas like brahmA are not. I can probably live with that, but I'm still not clear on the need to use the term "transformation" when it has obvious anti-vedAntic feeling to it (brahman being unchanging and all).

As far as who that shambu is, as a non-gauDIya trying to understand gauDIya vaiShNavism, I can only answer this by citing Sri Bhaktisiddhanta's commentary on that verse, and he seems quite clear that the BrS 5.45 shambu is not a jIva. Now, the only thing I am clear on aside from that is that (1) his commentary and (2) the comments of shrI jIva and shrI bhaktivedAnta prabhupAda appeart to this outsider to be at odds with each other. Greater consistency from one commentator to another would be helpful here, as would be less reliance on "inconceivable oneness and difference" as a way to explain everything, and more clarity with regards to the categories each entity belongs in. After all, that was the point of brahma-saMhitA, was it not? To clarify the exact relationships between these different devas with respect to Krishna?

Also, just FYI, nArAyaNa Himself is referred to as "shiva," "sadAshiva," "rudra," "maheshvara," and even "shambu" in clearly Vaishnava texts like the viShNu-sahasra-nAma stotra and the mahAnArAyaNa upaniShad of the kRiShNa yajur veda. However, I have never seen Sri Vaishnava commentators suggest that these imply some sort of "inconceivably one and different" relationship between nArAyaNa and shiva, any more than they would with nArAyaNa and indra/agni/varuNa/vAyu, etc. As far as they are concerned, all of these anya-devata names are also names of nArAyaNa, and His exclusive supremacy above anya-devatas including brahmA and shiva is an undisputed fact even when He is identified with characteristics suggestive of anya-devatas, such as when He is described as the prajApati, as the three-eyed Lord of umA, as the fire-god who accepts the offerings in yagna, as the thousand-eyed indra, etc. All of this is quite sensible for an omnipotent, omnipresent Deity who has infinite, divine attributes - It should not be the case that only anya-devatas have such attributes but not the Lord who created them. Moreover, He has all their attributes in a secondary sense, as being their indwelling-controller, whatever they have is also His by the principle of samAnAdhikaraNya (co-ordinate predication). Again, this strikes one as being very internally consistent without having to invoke difficult-to-pin-down concepts like "inconceivable sameness and difference." Again, just my perspective as an outsider looking in (and who spent many years trying to assimilate the concept with a favorable attitude towards associating with GVs).

regards,

[smaranam]

Again, this strikes one as being very internally consistent without having to invoke difficult-to-pin-down concepts like "inconceivable sameness and difference."

praNAm Philosoraptor

Did you hear what you just said? "difficult to pin down concepts"
That is precisely what achintya means! That which cannot be undserstood by mere chintan. Which cannot be imagined or grasped.

Achintya-bheda-abheda i.e. Inconceivable Simultaneous Oneness and Difference is just precisely that! and perhaps the closest so far one can get to describing Brahman-ParamAtmA-BhagavAn.
We have to leave aside the expectation that He should be graspable, concrete, black-and-white.

This is my personal experience. He is totally natkhat. Hence the philosophy behind Him is equally natkhat. He plays hide-and-seek.
One moment i reach the point that everything is Him, then He starts laughing and i realized He has just tricked me all over again.

After a few days He pretends to be sober and i get tricked all over again.
It is like dhUp-chAnv (sunshine & shade). One moment it is bheda the next moment it is abheda. That does not mean it is abheda as many here would like to conclude (jump at). Far from it.

--------

If the word transformation is troubling, perhaps adopting will help.

The Lord expands into roles. Then that expanded One (SadAshiva) adopts a particular guNa for a particular task. As soon as this expansion of the Lord adopts a guNa, this is another entity, another form, other that the expansion. This is how The-Shiva-Who-Destroys-matter is another entity from SadAshiva.

Baddha jivas are involuntarily caught in the whirlpool of mAyA.

What would you call those who voluntarily adopt material guNa - like wearing a cloak - but stay untouched by it, but are not the Suprme Lord Himself directly? (but His devotee, in service of Him?)

Ans: Neither Supreme Lord not JIva.
Not Supreme Lord owing to the adoption of the guNa.
Not jIva in the conventional sense because they are in control of or preside over that guNa, not marginal (taTastha) like other jIvas.

-----

Aside from this:

In VishNu purAN, it is stated that when no suitable jIva is found for the position of Indra, BhagvAn VishNu Himself takes on the role of Indra. Otherwise, Indra could be another empowered albeit baddha jIva OR in another kalpa could be a siddha jIva performing service. In general, the devas are shown mostly under the influence of the modes in purAN. These are stories from different kalpas. So just because the one in position of Indra or Agni in one manvantara / kalpa was of nature A does not mean all Indras and all Agnis in all kalpas manvantars in all universes are of nature A.


_/\_

Bado natkhat hai mero karo Kanhaiyaa ...

[Kalicharan Tuvij]

I will like to offer some inputs here.
First, "parvat" means, apart from meaning mountain, "knot","joint", or "node". So if the "Trimurti Shiva" being discussed here is said to dwell on parvat, it only means that he is connected to vishva (world) through the node. It means, "Trimurti Shiva" contains within himself all world, in addition to being his "Sada Shiva" self, which resides in Samudra.
The use of parvat as thus is same as in Rig-Veda, where parvat denotes the barrier, or node, between any two realms in general.

Let me phrase this in the language of Veda. There are 11 Rudras. 9 of them are in fact all gods constituting vishva, that is, Prithivi and Dyo and Antariksha combined. 10 th Rudra is the original Rudra, or "Sada Shiva" being mentioned here. 11 th Rudra is the sum of all these 10 Rudras, who I see as none other than Shiva, of Hinduism. Here, of course, the 11th is being discussed as "Trimurti Shiva".

In fact Rig-Veda employs such scheme for Vasus and Maruts, too.

There is a lot of play in Sanskrit behind "Rudra", as it is most probably originally a neuter action noun, instead of being agent noun. That is, a term, "on par" with "Brahman".

I will, therefore, rather still like to call "Sada Shiva" as Rudra, and "Trimurti Shiva" as Shiva. As for the Vaishnavas, well, in the post Vedic age the mainstream approach has been to negate Rudra, and to assign a secondary status to Shiva. This, in addition to calling, again erroneously, Narayana or Vishnu same as Brahman, in essence.

So, what is the best possible way to negate Rudra, i.e. Sada Shiva? Suppose I know two people: Ritesh, and Hitesh. How to deny the existence of Hitesh? I can say that Hitesh doesn't exist. Or, even better, I can say, Ritesh himself is Hitesh. Saying Vishnu himself is Rudra is the safest bet, I bet.

*foot note: Sat = Brahman, Chit = Daksha, Ananda = Rudra.

[philosoraptor]

As for the Vaishnavas, well, in the post Vedic age the mainstream approach has been to negate Rudra, and to assign a secondary status to Shiva. This, in addition to calling, again erroneously, Narayana or Vishnu same as Brahman, in essence.

Well, the 10th chapter of the taittirIya AraNyaka explicitly identifies nArAyaNa with brahman. Are you suggesting then, that the taittirIya AraNyaka is "post-Vedic?"

[philosoraptor]

praNAm Philosoraptor

Did you hear what you just said? "difficult to pin down concepts"
That is precisely what achintya means! That which cannot be undserstood by mere chintan. Which cannot be imagined or grasped.

Achintya-bheda-abheda i.e. Inconceivable Simultaneous Oneness and Difference is just precisely that! and perhaps the closest so far one can get to describing Brahman-ParamAtmA-BhagavAn.
We have to leave aside the expectation that He should be graspable, concrete, black-and-white.

Pranams,

Granted that God is inconceivable, but why must the philosophy by which He is to be understood be inconceivable? The whole point of philosophy is to make the inconceivable conceivable, because without clarity of thought one will not be capable of knowing what is right action and what is wrong action.

By making Shiva "different but non-different," I would like to point out that GV's are sending mixed-messages when, on one hand they say only Vishnu can be worshipped for liberation, and then on the other hand saying that Shiva is inconceivably non-different from Him.

Also, when you retreat into "achintyatva" to avoid clarifying unclear relationships between tattvas, I cannot help but feel the similarity to mayavadis who cite "anirvachaniyatva" to explain how maya can exist and yet not exist when supposedly only brahman exists.

[Kalicharan Tuvij]

Well, the 10th chapter of the taittirIya AraNyaka explicitly identifies nArAyaNa with brahman. Are you suggesting then, that the taittirIya AraNyaka is "post-Vedic?"

Kindly read it carefully.

1) basics:
A is B. B is A.
=> A = B.
Now, Vishnu is Brahman is the first statement. But, unfortunately, the second statement, "Brahman is Vishnu", is not possible, and amounts to blasphemy in Hinduism (how? See part 2).
This kind of faulty reasoning (A is B => A=B) is to be seen very clearly in this almost apologetic article: http://www.indianetzone.com/49/brahman_god.htm

2) what A is B means:
RgVeda, somewhere, says: Agni seems to me Varuna. Now, Varuna's essence is Beauty, so the statement means, Agni is beautiful.
Taittiriya Up. 1.1 (I hate quoting): "O Vayu thou indeed art the Visible (pratyaksha) Brahman. Of thee (Vayu), indeed the Visible Brahman, will I speak."
Brahman is the "Silent Observer". Silent, invisible. So the above quote highlights, very delicately, the poetic contrast of Vayu, the Prithvi God, who though visible in his murty (image) of "wind", is yet an Aditya, a silent builder, observer, invisible, in reality. I chose this particular quote to highlight "the A is B meaning" of Brahman, using the contrast, of "Visible Brahman".
So much so, RgVeda leaves out Brahman in the enumeration of all Gods: Aditi's children are 12, but only 11 are counted. Moreover Brahman is not mentioned even once in the whole body of RgVeda, yet he is everywhere, if you can feel it; his absence is his presence. Though there are some very oblique references, in one or two places, when using the term "Brahmán" who, in the usual sense of word, is one of the priests (the silent instructor) in the ChaturVarna of priests: Udgatr, Adhavaryu, Brahmán, and Hotr.
This is a very delicate issue, I hope that the members will not make **** of it. Please don't be casual.

3) for public consumption (simile):
Mahendra Singh Dhoni is the Silent Leader ( *brahman*), and easily the best batsman (*Sat*) of the team, yet he, the hard worker (*Brahma*) has to do wicket keeping (*creating matter, desitinies*), the "thankless job".
Time to let Brahman remain with Brahma, and to give Brahma his due?

[brahma jijnasa]

Namaste philosoraptor

but I'm still not clear on the need to use the term "transformation" when it has obvious anti-vedAntic feeling to it (brahman being unchanging and all).

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?
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.

I believe I only said that it was "irrefutable" that the brahma-saMhitA was singling out shambhu as having a special relationship vis-a-vis nArAyaNa. In other words, it is not the case that he is described as a "transformation" of nArAyaNa by virtue of being a jIva, since other jIvas are not described as such.

Are we now a little disingenuous? or what?
How can it be "it is not the case ... by virtue of being a jIva, since other jIvas are not described as such"?
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.

Thus far, the only answer you have provided or hinted at is that shambu the jIva is specially empowered in some way that other empowered jIvas like brahmA are not.

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!
On the other hand, no one can become Lord Sadāśiva who is Lord Vishnu himself because Lord Vishnu has eternal and unchanging position. Thus Lord Sadāśiva has eternal and unchanging position and therefore no one can become Lord Sadāśiva.

From this example we also see that Gaudiyas do not consider one particular Trimurti Shiva jiva to be singled out "as having a special relationship vis-a-vis nArAyaNa".

I already gave this example earlier in one of my previous posts. Perhaps you do not read my posts carefully.

I can give you another reason of why Trimurti Shiva is said to be somewhat superior to jivas and thus "not a jiva" although Trimurti Shiva is a jiva, I repeat he is a jiva.
Also we should not forget that Brahma, Trimurti (guṇa-avatāra) Shiva, Agni, Indra etc are just posts (duties) temporarily occupied by some jivas. If we take Trimurti (guṇa-avatāra) Shiva just as the position or duty in the universe, and if we take that a particular jiva that holds this position is just said to be somewhat superior to jivas and thus "not a jiva", is even superior to the position of Brahma, then there is a reasonable explanation even for that.
An explanation is given based on the fact that all avatars of the Lord are just His parts. Only Lord Krishna is "whole" or 100% the Lord, and all the avatars of the Lord are a part of these 100%, thus they are called kalā "portion of a whole". Last time I discussed this in my post #265 (Why is the Lord called kalā "portion of a whole"? ...)
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/sho...8547#post98547

The Lord appears in the form of Trimurti (guṇa-avatāra) Shiva in the more complete manner than in the form of guṇa-avatāra Brahma and other jivas such as Agni Indra Varuna etc.

That is also the answer to your question as regards:

However, I have never seen Sri Vaishnava commentators suggest that these imply some sort of "inconceivably one and different" relationship between nArAyaNa and shiva, any more than they would with nArAyaNa and indra/agni/varuNa/vAyu, etc.

also

very weak justification appears to be bedha-abedha philosophy, which somehow strangely applies more to shiva with respect to nArAyaNa than other devas with respect to nArAyaNa
...
I would not expect shiva to be any more "one" with nArAyaNa than the other devas

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.

By making Shiva "different but non-different," I would like to point out that GV's are sending mixed-messages when, on one hand they say only Vishnu can be worshipped for liberation, and then on the other hand saying that Shiva is inconceivably non-different from Him.

Also, when you retreat into "achintyatva" to avoid clarifying unclear relationships between tattvas, I cannot help but feel the similarity to mayavadis who cite "anirvachaniyatva" to explain how maya can exist and yet not exist when supposedly only brahman exists.

All this that you are saying just shows that you do not even know the basis of acintya-bhedābheda-tattva philosophy.
To accuse Gaudiyas would be like accusing Vyasadeva of such a statement like is Bhagavatam 12.10.22.
Neither is this Gaudiya philosophy mayavada or advaita because there in Gaudiya philosophy is also a difference. It should also be understood that in the concept of "one" or "oneness" there is a gradation of this "oneness" in the sense that some avatar can be more "one" to the Lord or better to say more complete than some others.
Never forget that only Lord Krishna is the most complete whole, while all the others are just some gradation of that completeness!

Within this "gradation" is a big range that gives you the possibility that some avatar can be less complete, some more complete, and some even more than that, until that One who is the most complete (Lord Krishna).

Also do not confuse this with terms jiva or vibhinnāḿśa "separate part" type of entity (in english translation of Paramatma-sandarbha by Jiva Gosvami expression "not a direct expansion of Lord Vishnu" is used), and viṣṇu-tattva or svāṃśa "a personal expansion or personal part" (in english translation of Paramatma-sandarbha by Jiva Gosvami expression "a direct expansion of Lord Vishnu" is used).

regards