Re: LORd SIVA : A Gaudiya Vaisnava Perspective

[Jogesh]

Pranams,

This is news to me. Why did he forbid its teaching? Do you have the location of any quotes in which this is explained?

He forbade it because it's conclusions were not so much in line with Gaudiya Vaishnava Siddhanta...

Advaita Acarya has a very fitting name for someone who would study Yog-Vasistha wouldn't you agree..?

The story is found in CC I believe, I will locate later...just starting my work day here.

namaskar

[philosoraptor]

No, see his post, he says that there are verses in the scriptures about Lord Krishna with the purpose to mislead. He even mentioned that the Buddha was an incarnation of Lord Vishnu who descends to deceive.

Pranams,

This is not what I said. What I said is that when a scripture is authored, you need additional assumptions about the credentials of the author and his willingness to enlighten and not deceive, in order to accept its contents as true. This is why apaureusheya-granthas are more authoritative - no such assumptions are required because they have no author. Paurusheya granthas by contrast, are dependent on not contradicting apaurusheya-granthas in order to be considered authoritative.

I specifically gave the example of Buddha to explain why a very exalted person's words should not be accepted as genuine merely on the strength of his position/status. From your own ISKCON translation of the bhAgavatam:

"SB 1.3.24 — Then, in the beginning of Kali-yuga, the Lord will appear as Lord Buddha, the son of Añjanā, in the province of Gayā, just for the purpose of deluding those who are envious of the faithful theist."

Whether I believe Vyaasa intended to deceive or not is besides the point (I obviously don't, but again that's secondary). We are discussing epistemological principles here. Belief is secondary. Moreover, you can't argue that everything found in the smRitis authored by Vyaasa came from Vyaasa himself, as there are enough differences between different recensions of almost every smRiti to conclude that human interpolation has occurred. This is especially noticeable with verses that seek to promote some anya-devata as being superior to Vishnu.

[brahma jijnasa]

All I have to say about this, is that I'll be happy when I can finally understand what a 'Demigod' is.

Prabhupada's use of the word 'demigod' for deva is an unfortunate choice of words.

Prabhupada used the word "demigod" in the sense of "one who is not Lord Krishna" or in the sense of "one who is not The Supreme Lord".
Gaudiya Vaishnavas consider that the gods like Brahma Indra Agni etc are subordinate to Lord Krishna.

As far as I know Gaudiya Vaishnavas explained that there are at least two different forms of Lord Shiva. One of them is Lord Vishnu himself, called Lord Sadasiva, He is Vishnu tattva, while the other Shiva is not Vishnu but is one of the three gods amongst Brahma Vishnu Shiva.
That Lord Shiva who is not Lord Vishnu is often called "a demigod" in the writings of the Gaudiya Vaishnavas.

regards

[philosoraptor]

He forbade it because it's conclusions were not so much in line with Gaudiya Vaishnava Siddhanta...

Advaita Acarya has a very fitting name for someone who would study Yog-Vasistha wouldn't you agree..?

The story is found in CC I believe, I will locate later...just starting my work day here.

namaskar

I was wanting to know what specifically was written in YV which contradicted their teachings. I take it that Gaudiyas don't regard YV as an authored work of Valmiki then? I myself have not studied YV, but I noticed that Advaitins really like this particular text.

[Jogesh]

I was wanting to know what specifically was written in YV which contradicted their teachings. I take it that Gaudiyas don't regard YV as an authored work of Valmiki then? I myself have not studied YV, but I noticed that Advaitins really like this particular text.

Yoga Visistha teaches Advaitavada...

[Omkara]

If there is not any difference at all between Lord Krishna and other forms of the Lord, and if form of Lord Krishna is not somehow more complete than all the other forms, then why have all the forms called amsas while only Lord Krishna is not amsa? Lord Krishna is nobody's amsa or part! Word aṁśa means "a part". A part is somehow less complete than the whole. The very word aṁśa "a part" implies that they are somehow less complete than Lord Krishna.

That means that the holy name of Lord Rama has a higher spiritual power than some other names. This is, again, consistent with the view that the Lord appears in the form of Lord Rama in a more complete manner than in other forms. If this is not so then why would the name of Lord Rama had a higher spiritual power.

We should also notice that there is the difference between "complete" "more complete" and "the most complete". For all forms of the Lord are said to be simultaneously "a part" and "plenary", but for Lord Krishna is not said "a part" but only "complete" or even "the most complete".

Even Lord Narayana is said to be a part of Lord Krishna in Bhagavatam 10.14.14 ( http://vedabase.net/sb/10/14/14/en ).
In Bhagavatam 1.9.18 ( http://vedabase.net/sb/1/9/18/en ) Lord Krishna is described as "He is the first Nārāyaṇa". So it is not Lord Narayana the first at all but is Lord Krishna. He is that "First One" from whom everything else emerges. "Everything else" includes Lord Narayana, all other forms of Lord Vishnu, all living beings and everything that is material.

That the scriptures wanted to say that this is arthavada, then they would have said so, "Now we'll say one arthavada" but they don't. Gaudiyas would accept this scriptural statement as it is.

This form of Lord Vishnu who possesses the qualities refferd to by the name Rama indeed is Lord Rama.

Please provide an example in a scripture where an arthavada is preceded by a sentence declaring the next sentence to be an arthavada. Are you sure you know what an Arthavada is?

[Omkara]

While it teaches monism, the Yoga Vashishta is a rewarding read for non-advaitins too.

[brahma jijnasa]

Are you sure you know what an Arthavada is?

Okay then maybe I do not know what is Arthavada. Explain, then I'll comment.

regards

[Necromancer]

Prabhupada used the word "demigod" in the sense of "one who is not Lord Krishna" or in the sense of "one who is not The Supreme Lord".
Gaudiya Vaishnavas consider that the gods like Brahma Indra Agni etc are subordinate to Lord Krishna.

As far as I know Gaudiya Vaishnavas explained that there are at least two different forms of Lord Shiva. One of them is Lord Vishnu himself, called Lord Sadasiva, He is Vishnu tattva, while the other Shiva is not Vishnu but is one of the three gods amongst Brahma Vishnu Shiva.
That Lord Shiva who is not Lord Vishnu is often called "a demigod" in the writings of the Gaudiya Vaishnavas.

regards

Namaste.

I often wonder why it is that the same five-headed naga resides over the Shiva Lingam and the head of Lord Vishnu.

I also wonder why it is that both are in Samadhi, being cradled by the universe?

Recently, I've been wondering why it is, that the four arms of Lord Bhairava hold exactly the same things as Lord Narayana, except for the head of Lord Brahma, where a Lotus Flower should be...and if you know the story about how Lord Brahma was 'born', this holds great significance to one.

Wondering why, neither Lord Brahma nor Lord Vishnu could find the 'end' of Lord Shiva's Jyotir Lingam when tested..

The questions go on and on...

Aum Namah Shivaya

[philosoraptor]

Namaste.

I often wonder why it is that the same five-headed naga resides over the Shiva Lingam and the head of Lord Vishnu.

The serpent cradling Lord Vishnu is Ananta-Sesha who has countless heads. This is different from the serpent associated with Shiva, whom I believe is Vasuki (Omkar might know better).

I also wonder why it is that both are in Samadhi, being cradled by the universe?

Where is your evidence that Vishnu is in "samadhi?"

Wondering why, neither Lord Brahma nor Lord Vishnu could find the 'end' of Lord Shiva's Jyotir Lingam when tested..

This story is not in shruti, and in fact is only in Shaivite puraanas which, apparently, even Shaivites don't accept as authoritative.

regards,