lord shiva

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~

The revealer and the revealed are not two separate beings, but it is most important to attain the revealer through the revealed. Om Namah Shivaya

Namasté
Atanu speaks wisely here i.e. to attain the revealer through the revealed. Here is one way it is mentioned, from Vijñāna Bhairava¹ :

… śaivī-mukhaṃ ichocyate || 20
śakti ( which is śaivī) is the mouth (mukhaṃ) or entrance ichocyate (it is explained , ucyate or explained)

This sūtra informs us śakti is the entrance…. but to what?

The 21st sūtra informs us completely¹.
Just as parts of space are known by the light of a lamp
or the rays of the sun, in the say way O Dear One
Śiva is known through Śakti.

praṇām
words and references

• Vijñāna Bhairava - the conversation between śakti and śiva. This is from the Rudrayāmala Tantra.
• Vijñāna is vi+jñāna: vi is to discern, distinction + jñāna is wisdom, knowledge.
• Bhairava - more in-depth explanation of Bhairava can be found at this HDF post:http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=17892&postcount=52
• The 21st sūtra reads the following:
  yathālokena dīpasya kiraṇair-bhāskarasya ca |
  jñāyate dig-vibhāgādi tadvac chatyā śivaḥ priye || 21

[santosh]

Hare Krishna atanuji,

When you say such as
> What kind of mind can derive such a convoluted interpretation from the
> very precise verses of Mahabharata, attributed to Shri Krishna?
> The sadhu (?) writer ignores...

it is blashemy. To say Sadhu writer ignores...it is blasphemy.

The Sadhu is not ignoring anything, the scriptures are clear and commentaries on scriptures by great Vaishnava Acharyas are clear as well. You don't understand it or disagree with it, that's your choice.

> There is no doubt in me and many of us here that the Visva Atma is not different from Advaita Atman. And Self Realised sages teach that the Visva is from the Advaita Atman.

> ...many of us here...
Which Sampradaya or Ashram you are referring to?

> ...the Visva Atma is not different from Advaita Atman.

Can you explain your understanding of what is the nature of Advaita Atman? Does it have a Form?

After reading your this post and your posts in other threads, it is clear that you have made lot of efforts in understanding the Supreme Absolute Truth. But you do not have proper understanding of the Supreme Absolute Truth. Your confusion about Lord Shiva and Lord Vishnu etc. is just a minor issue. It seems you are following some Advaita school of thought.

Advaita siddhanta says Aham Brahmasmi. But not Aham Para Brahmasmi. Incorrect understanding of Advaita is Aham Para Brahmasmi. Advaita Siddhanta in its highest stage can not, can not, explain about the complete nature of the Supreme Lord. It can take you only upto Brahm realization wherein the sadhaka realizes that he/she is Brahm.

Srimad Bhagavatam Maha Puran explains, three levels of realizing the Supreme Absolute Truth - Brahm realization, Paramatma Realization, Bhagawan realization. The Highest is the Bhagawan realization wherein the "humble" sadhaka sees the Supreme Absolute Truth in it's personal Form, that is, Lord Vishnu e.g. Dhruva after his tapascharya saw Lord Vishnu face to face. That is the Highest realization and Advaita Siddhanta does not have any concept of it, it is beyond Advaita Siddhanta.

Atma (Soul) in the body is Brahm-Swaroop, meaning it is Sat-Chit-Ananda, but it is not Para-Brahma (Super Soul). No, never. Para-Brahm is the Supreme Absolute Truth of which Atma is tiny infinitesmal part. Para-Brahma is infinite, but individual Atma is not infinite. Para-Brahma is the Supreme Absolute Creator and unlimited Atmas (souls or living entities) are His creation. There should not be any difficulty in understanding this. God is God and we are we. So yes, the Soul is non-different than the Lord and yet simultaneously different than the Lord - one in quality but not in quantity. He is Vibhu and we are anu. This "simultaneous oneness and difference" is explained in Achintya Bhedabhed philosophy by Lord Gauranga Himself.

Brahm never becomes Para-Brahm. In Brahm realization, Soul merges with the Para-Brahm but even then it maintains it's own identity separate. Why? because that's how it was created? We are separated part-and-parcel of the Supreme Absolute Truth. This is the proper understanding and it is not mine, it is given by the Vaishnava Acharyas - Srila Madhvacharya, Srila Vallabhacharya, Srila Ramanujacharya, Srila Nimbarkacharya, Srila Yamunacharya, Saint Gyaneshwar, Saint Tukaram, Saint Namadev, Srila Vishvanath Chakravati, Srila Baladev Vidyabhushan and many others and it is available to anyone.

Even Sri Sankaracharya who is a staunch monist, at the end said "Bhaja Govindam".

One can not understand the Supreme Absolute Truth on one's own mental effort or by reading some books. Only by surrendering to the Pure Devotee, one can ever think of understanding the Supreme Truth.

The most important fact for attaining spiritual knowledge is that you must learn the scriptures from bonafide Spiritual Master. Even reading bonafide Scriptures on own's own can give wrong conclusions. I will give one example to illustrate that. Please read Srimad Bhagavatam 8.7.19. Translatation is:

O King, when that uncontrollable poison was forcefully spreading up and down in all directions, all the demigods, along with the Lord Himself, approached Lord Śiva [Sadāśiva]. Feeling unsheltered and very much afraid, they sought shelter of him.

Now read the commentary by Srila Madhvacharya:

One may question that since the Supreme Personality of Godhead was personally present, why did He accompany all the demigods and people in general to take shelter of Lord Sadāśiva, instead of intervening Himself. In this connection Śrīla Madhvācārya warns:

rudrasya yaśaso 'rthāya
svayaḿ viṣṇur viṣaḿ vibhuḥ
na sañjahre samartho 'pi
vāyuḿ coce praśāntaye

Lord Viṣṇu was competent to rectify the situation, but in order to give credit to Lord Śiva, who later drank all the poison and kept it in his neck, Lord Viṣṇu did not take action.

All bonafide Vaishnavas in all traditions hold Lord Shiva in highest respect, owe and reverence. ISKCON celebrates Maha Shivaratri and there are special lectures glorifying the glories of Lord Shiva.

[atanu]

Hare Krishna atanuji,

Now read the commentary by Srila Madhvacharya:

One may question that since the Supreme Personality of Godhead was personally present, why did He accompany all the demigods and people in general to take shelter of Lord Sadāśiva, instead of intervening Himself. In this connection Śrīla Madhvācārya warns:

rudrasya yaśaso 'rthāya
svayaḿ viṣṇur viṣaḿ vibhuḥ
na sañjahre samartho 'pi
vāyuḿ coce praśāntaye

Lord Viṣṇu was competent to rectify the situation, but in order to give credit to Lord Śiva, who later drank all the poison and kept it in his neck, Lord Viṣṇu did not take action.

All bonafide Vaishnavas in all traditions hold Lord Shiva in highest respect, owe and reverence. ISKCON celebrates Maha Shivaratri and there are special lectures glorifying the glories of Lord Shiva.

Namaste Santosh,

If ISKCON members hold Lord Shiva in high esteem then it is good to hear and too good to believe.

By citing Madhavacharya and other purports as proof you are just piling opinion upon opinion -- all these are not sruti. And there is no point going ahead by piling up evidences when all I am asking is resolution of these two following two contradictory statements and one statement is from Lord Krishna.

Lord Krishna to Arjuna

tasmAdAtmAnamevAgre rudraM sampUjayAmyaham ( I worship Rudra first as my own Self). And yastaM vetti sa mAM vetti yo.anu taM sa hi mAm anu (Whoever knows him, knows me. Whoever follows him, follows me).

vs.




Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur (in his book Lord Shiva: The greatest vaisnava).

Lord Vishnu taught the worship of Rudra not to His own sincere devotees but to the insincere living entities who desire religiosity, economic development, sense gratification, and liberation. ---

Therefore I teach the worship of My servants through My personal behavior. -----.

-----------------------
That is extraordinary divergence. I pray that may we first resolve this.

Regarding the greatest worshipper part, you may be surprised to know that Soma (Shiva with Uma) worship is known as Vaisnav worship in Satapatha Brahmana.

Om

[santosh]

Hare Krishna everybody,

Namaste Santosh,

By citing Madhavacharya and other purports as proof you are just piling opinion upon opinion -- all these are not sruti. And there is no point going ahead by piling up evidences...

What Srila Madhvacharya is saying is not just "a" opinion of "a" person. We have to be realistic and understand relative Spiritual Position. Your opinion and my opinion are just opinions, worth pretty much nothing. That's not the case with Srila Madhvacharya.

Who is Srila Madhvacharya?

-------------------------
Sri Padma Puran:

Sampradaya Vihina ye Mantraste Viphala Matah
Atah kalau bhavishyanti chaatvarah Sampradayeenah

(Please understand here the siginificance of the use of "Sampradaya Vihina" and "Viphala")

Sri Brahma Rudra Sanak Vaishnavah Kshitipavanaah
chatrvarste kalaubhavya hee Utkale Purushottama

Ramanujam Shrihee Svichakre Madvacharya chaturmuhahs
Shri Vishnu Swamimino Rudro Nibadityam chatuh kshanah

Translation:

For kaliyuga there are four authorized Sampradayas -
1. Shri Sampradaya (Sri Ramanujacharya)
2. Brahma Sampradaya (Sri Madvacharya)
3. Kumar Sampradaya (Sri Nimbarkacharya)
4. Rudra Sampradaya (Sri Vishnu Swami)

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

Srila Madhvacharya's name appears in Sri Padma Puran, yours and mine does not, please understand that.

Srila Madhvacharya and others (Sri Ramanujacharya, Sri Nimbarkacharya and Sri Vishnu Swami) are bonafide, authorized Spiritual Masters. What they say is not concoction or just a opinion. If your conclusion is opposite to that of Srila Madhvacharya, then your opinion or conclusion is wrong.

...That is extraordinary divergence. I pray that may we first resolve this.

Om

Srila Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswait Thakur Maharaj's explanation is correct. Your understanding of the original verse is incorrect becuase you are doing blind translation whithout understanding what's being said. Blind translation leads to wrong conclusions. Let me explain how.

One of the popular verses in Srimad Bhagavad Gita is BG 2.47

karmaṇy evādhikāras te
mā phaleṣu kadācana
mā karma-phala-hetur bhūr
mā te sańgo 'stv akarmaṇi

Focus on the first part - Karmany eva adhikaras te, ma phalesu kadacan The blind translation say - you have right to do your work, but not to fruits ( ma phaleshu). In Sanskrit, phala means fruit (like mango, apple, orange etc.) and ma means not. So does "ma phaleshu" here means Lord Krishna is saying no right to fruits, meaning we shouldn't eat fruits?

Someone says phaleshu does't mean eatable fruit, but "results of your work." Ok, does is it mean that someone who is working in factory should not take salary at the end of month, becauase salary one gets "is result of one's work" for a month. Is this what the verse means?

You see how blind translation is misleading and gives wrong conclusions. The correct translation/meaning of this verse, which most of us know, is that "one has right to work/duty but one should not be attached to the results of that work/duty etc." Now someone can say how is this? Why are you saying "...should not be attached..."? Where is it referred to in the original verse? Sanskrit word for non-attachment is "anasakta", I don't see word "anasakta" in the original verse therefore the translation of this verse to "...one should not be attached to the results..." is concoction, convoluted. But as we know it is not.

When Pure Devotees such as Srila Madhvacharya, Srila Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati Thakur Maharaj etc. are providing translation, they are providing us with the proper meaning of that verse in the proper context. They are not giving us blind translation which any Tom/Dick/Harry with little knowledge of Sanskrit can do. Just as your english teacher can not teach Physics eventhough Physics book is written in english and english teacher can read/write/speak english very well and may be better than the Physics teacher, but still he can not teach Physics, becuase he has "no idea" of what the subject matter is. Just the same way, reading/ translating Sanskrit text of the Scripture has nothing to do with uderstanding what's being said.

Therefore while translating scriptural verses, one has to translate each word in the context of the verse and verse in the context of the overall passage and each passage in the context of "that" scripture whichever it is and that particular scripture in the overall context of all Sanatan Dharma scriptures, else it would be misleading. Only Pure Devotees can provide proper translation, we can not.

A friend of mine knows someone who argues - where in Srimad Bhagavad Gita, does it say one should not drink liquor, therefore it is ok to drink liquor. He drinks alcoholic beverages. This guy actually works as a part- time priest in some Temple in US. Obviously his understanding is incorrect.

Similarly one can put a mundane arguement that because milk is nothing but transformed blood therefore it is a non-vegetarian product and should not be offered to Lord Krishna or Lord Vishnu. So there appears to be contradiction. But the Scriptures and Pure Devotees tell us we can offer milk products to Lord Krishna. Actually milk and milk products (dahi, butter etc.) are Lord Krishna's favorites.

Since you mentioned Mahabharat, I would like to quote verse from Mahabharat 18.6.93,

Vede Ramayane Ch eva purane bharate tatha
adau madhye tatha ch ante Harih sarvatra geeyate.

Translation: In the texts of vedas, Ramayana, Puranas and Mahabharat, in the beginning of these texts, in the middle of these texts and in the end of these texts, glories of Hari are described.

Brihad Naradiya Purana says:

Harer Nama, Harer Nama, Harer Nama eva kevalam
kalau na asti eva, na asti eva, na asti eva, gatir anyatha

The Sanskrit of this text itself is very clear. Please understand the significance of the words "eva" and "kevalam".

In Sri Padma Puran (Uttar Khand 72-335), Lord Shiva Himself says to Srimati Parvati:

Ram Rameti, Rameti Rame Raame Manorame
Sahasra Nama Tatulyam Ram Naam Varanane

Sri Brahmanda Puran:

Sahasra Naamnam Punyanam Giravritya tu yat phalam
ekavrutya tu Krishnasya Naam ekam tat Prayacchati.

Without studying Scriptures from bonafide Guru in a bonafide (authorized) Sampradaya, it leads to wrong conclusions. It is important to undertake learning of Scriptures under the guidance of a bonafide Guru in a bonafide (authorized) Sampradaya. Else such a study, no matter how meticulous, leads to wrong conclusions.

Srila Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati Thakur Maharaj is simply giving knowledge in the line of srila Madhvacharya's Sampradaya (Parampara). He is simply putting it into english what was said in Sanskrit by the previous Vaishnava Acharyas, he is not inventing anything new. I request, please be respectful.

[atanu]

Hare Krishna everybody,

Srila Madhvacharya's name appears in Sri Padma Puran, yours and mine does not, please understand that.

Namaste Santosh,

I am sorry for wasting your time. Just wanted to inform that the names atanu (and pratanu) appear in Veda.

Om

[atanu]

Mahabharat 18.6.93,

Vede Ramayane Ch eva purane bharate tatha
adau madhye tatha ch ante Harih sarvatra geeyate.

You should know that rAma is agni. And Soma is called Hari in Rg Veda. We surely do not think that worship of rAma and hari is not prescribed.

Without studying Scriptures from bonafide Guru in a bonafide (authorized) Sampradaya, it leads to wrong conclusions.

Who is being disrepectful? Do you think that only you have bonafide master?

Srila Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati Thakur Maharaj is simply giving knowledge in the line of srila Madhvacharya's Sampradaya (Parampara). He is simply putting it into english what was said in Sanskrit by the previous Vaishnava Acharyas, he is not inventing anything new. I request, please be respectful.

Your lengthy pasted material does not explain why Shri Krishna says: I worship Rudra first as my own Self and Whoever knows him, knows me. Whoever follows him, follows me.

Whereas Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur says: Lord Vishnu taught the worship of Rudra not to His own sincere devotees but to the insincere living entities ----. Moreover, he also interprets 'Rudra is my own Self' as 'Rudra is my own part'. WE ALWAYS KNOW THAT ATMAN IS NOT A PART.

It is always as clear as water as to who are disrespectful. A statement like 'Lord Vishnu taught the worship of Rudra not to His own sincere devotees but to the insincere living entities' betrays that Srila Saraswati thinks that Shiva devotees are insincere and he alone is sincere.

Om

[atanu]

Brihad Naradiya Purana says

Harer Nama, Harer Nama, Harer Nama eva kevalam
kalau na asti eva, na asti eva, na asti eva, gatir anyatha

The Sanskrit of this text itself is very clear. Please understand the significance of the words "eva" and "kevalam".

When the fundamental is not understood then bigoted bias emerges. First take time to digest the following teaching of Hari Himself:

yastaM vetti sa mAM vetti yo.anu taM sa hi mAm anu

rudro nArAyaNashchaiva sattvamekaM dvidhAkR^itam

loke charati kaunteya vyakti sthaM sarvakarmasu

Whoever knows him, knows me. Whoever follows him, follows me. (Though) the world, in all its actions, worships two Gods Rudra and Narayana, it is actually One only who is worshipped.

OM

[Atman]

Urdhvareta is one who's directed his energies, consciousness upwards. It may not necessarily refer to semen. Urdhvareti kriya also is a yogic technique that helps achieve the same. But yes it also moves the semen and directs it upwards. Shiva burnt Kamdev to ashes. Rati prays to Shiva to grant back her husband now burnt to ashes. Lord Shiva promises that Kamdev will be born again after many yugas.
Later as Krishna worships Shiva to have a son as valorous as He, Shiva blesses him with a son who is none other than Kamdev himself.

Even for a yogi who has attained sehestrar bhedan siddhi and attained Nirvikalpa samadhi is in bliss all the time and it is not possible for him to fall to petty carnal pleasures as he is already enjoying a much much higher pleasure that is beyond description to ordinary man.
It amazes me when some people talk loosely about Lord Shiva being able to overcome kama somehow, clearly hold no understanding of what a yogi's consciousness is who has parsed the veil of Maya and gone beyond and is situated in divine consciousness in constant samadhi. This is Krishna Consciousness, this is Shiva consciousness, this is divine consciousness. Love, peace and bliss in divine communion.
Hari Om.
Namah Shivaya!
Sarva Shiva mayam!
Regards,

Yogkriya.

If one has attained to Shiva consciousness- he gets to taste the bliss of Shivaloka, so attaining Nirvakalpa samadhi is blissful, but to get past brahmic bliss to Narayana/Krsna bliss is yet superior, otherwise one would just be content attaining Nirvakalpa.

[atanu]

If one has attained to Shiva consciousness- he gets to taste the bliss of Shivaloka, so attaining Nirvakalpa samadhi is blissful, but to get past brahmic bliss to Narayana/Krsna bliss is yet superior, otherwise one would just be content attaining Nirvakalpa.

Let us first taste the bliss of Shivaloka then. Have you already tasted it?

[Yogkriya]

If one has attained to Shiva consciousness- he gets to taste the bliss of Shivaloka, so attaining Nirvakalpa samadhi is blissful, but to get past brahmic bliss to Narayana/Krsna bliss is yet superior, otherwise one would just be content attaining Nirvakalpa.

"if one has attained to Shiva consciousness.."
To understand the consciousness of Mahavatar Babaji (sage who is living in his physical body for the past 2,000 years), is beyond an ordinary human consciousness, then to understand the conscious of Lord Shiva .. Shiva consciousness.... I think we have made terms like Krishna consciousness and Shiva consciousness and love to use them. There is no need to understand Shiva consciousness. Its a state of being. When one will be there, he'll know it. And there won't be any questions left to ask. Just pure bliss. Beyond the three gunas. That's why we say Shiva sarva mayam.
Namah Shivaya!
Yogkriya