Namaste philosoraptor
Here I will quote and discuss what you said to smaranam in the previous posts.
Originally Posted by
philosoraptor
Sri Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati seems to agree. In his commentary on Brahma-samhita, he says that Shiva is not a second Godhead or something like that.
My question then is as follows: if gauDIyas really believe this about shiva, then why would they object to someone worshipping shiva as the Supreme Lord and getting moksha from him?
Originally Posted by
philosoraptor
According to shruti, brahman is changeless and always transcendental to prakRiti, mAyA, etc. See for example Rig veda saMhitA 10.90.1, bRihadAraNyaka upaniShad 4.2.4, and chAndogya upaniShad 8.7.1. The point here is, when such an entity takes avatAra, His supremacy, Lordliness, etc are uncompromised. He does not associate with matter even when He appears in the world of matter.
Now, the question becomes this: is shiva, according to you the Lord "crossing the material boundry" for the purpose of creation, fully transcendental and thus equal in every way to the supreme brahman aka nArAyaNa? Or is he not? If he is not, then he cannot be brahman, and if he is, then this view isn't exactly orthodox Vaishnavism.
I've already talked about the Lord Shiva in this thread:
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.
Now you may say that
Originally Posted by
philosoraptor
The point is, there is no "in between" entity recognized in shAstra that is God but not God. So our statements clarifying who is what must be clear.
and also
Originally Posted by
philosoraptor
Frankly, I think it is a bit unclear as originally formulated, i.e. that Shiva is a transformation of Vishnu, and is equal to Vishnu and yet not equal to Vishnu. Truly, I think GV followers have a tough job with this one.
Certainly that there is no entity recognized in sastra that is God but not God and that Lord Shiva is equal to Vishnu and yet not equal to Vishnu, but I have to mention that scriptures exactly speak of Brahma and Siva just like that. In Gaudiya vaishnava sampradaya Jiva Gosvami gave examples of this in his Paramatma-sandarbha:
Here someone may protest: Is it not so that srimad- Bhagavatam (4.7.54) declares:
"One who does not consider Brahma, Visnu, and siva, or the living entities in general, to be separate from the Supreme, and who knows Brahman, actually realizes peace. Others do not."
In another Purana it is also said that anyone who thinks that Brahma and Siva are different from Lord Visnu becomes a resident of hell.
See also Bhagavatam 12.10.22:
"These devotees do not differentiate between Lord Viṣṇu, Lord Brahmā and me (Lord Śiva), nor do they differentiate between themselves and other living beings."
So although this Shiva is not Vishnu himself, we can say: "Śambhu is not a second Godhead other than Kṛṣṇa."
That Shiva who is not Vishnu is not worshipping as the Supreme Lord.
Because he is in contact with the material nature and "Just as milk is transformed into curd by the action of acids, but yet the effect curd is neither same as, nor different from, its cause, viz., milk" and also "is a transformation for the performance of the work of destruction" (see Brahma-saḿhitā 5.45) we can say that Lord Shiva who is not Lord Vishnu, is not The Supreme Lord.
Originally Posted by
philosoraptor
If one fails to identify who God is, and instead meditates on an entity who is not God, then his meditation will not have the desired fruit, namely emancipation from the world of birth and rebirth and promotion to that world that is beyond all this.
Originally Posted by
philosoraptor
is Shiva really bhagavAn, or is he a jIvAtma? If he is bhagavAn, then he transcends the influence of prakRiti, his worship is equal to worship of any form of nArAyaNa, and it should be possible to worship him in the same mood with which one worships Sri Krishna. If he is a jIvAtma, then he cannot grant liberation
Originally Posted by
philosoraptor
Now, when you say that Sadaashiva is a form of nArAyaNa, then it implies that this is the Lord Himself, not a separate being. His worship should be just as efficacious as worship of Rama or Krishna or Venkateshwara. Just as it is not correct to say that Venkateshwara worship is somehow less than Rama worship, it would therefore be incorrect to say in that situation that Shiva worship is somehow less than Rama worship. The point is, he cannot be nArAyaNa Himself and yet be somehow less than nArAyaNa! The links you provided indicate that Shiva is not regarded as jIva. Therefore, he is Brahman according to GV. If one can get pure bhakti through the worship of any other form of nArAyaNa, then he should get it by worship of Shiva in that case.
Originally Posted by
philosoraptor
Therein lies the problem, because Shiva is a devotee of Vishnu in pramaanas we both accept as authoritative. His status as a devotee is unquestioned, and there is no explicit differentiation between a "Sadaashiva" who is a form of Vishnu and another "Shiva" who is a devotee of Vishnu in any mainstream scriptures.
In fact scriptures say that Shiva who is Vishnu, Lord Sadasiva, can grant liberation.
Both forms of Lord Shiva, Lord Sadasiva who is Lord Vishnu himself and that other who is not Lord Vishnu (often called "a demigod" in the writings of the Gaudiya Vaishnavas) are devotees of the Lord. It is not impossible that even a form of Lord Vishnu, Lord Vishnu himself, can be a devotee of the Lord.
The demigods said to Lord Sadāśiva in Bhāgavatam:
"O lord, you are the cause of bondage and liberation of the entire universe because you are its ruler. Those who are advanced in spiritual consciousness surrender unto you, and therefore you are the cause of mitigating their distresses, and you are also the cause of their liberation. We therefore worship Your Lordship." (Bhāgavatam 8.7.22)
"O lord, you are self-effulgent and supreme. You create this material world by your personal energy, and you assume the names Brahmā, Viṣṇu and Maheśvara when you act in creation, maintenance and annihilation." (Bhāgavatam 8.7.23)
"O lord, the five important Vedic mantras are represented by your five faces, from which the thirty-eight most celebrated Vedic mantras have been generated. Your Lordship, being celebrated as Lord Śiva, is self-illuminated. You are directly situated as the supreme truth, known as Paramātmā." (Bhāgavatam 8.7.29)
"Even personalities like Lord Brahmā and other demigods cannot understand your position, for you are beyond the moving and nonmoving creation. Since no one can understand you in truth, how can one offer you prayers?" (Bhāgavatam 8.7.34)
See also Rig veda 7.59.12:
"We worship Tryambaka (three-eyed one, Shiva) Who spreads fragrance and increases nourishment, may He liberate (moksa) us, like the cucumber from its stem, from mortal life, and give us immortality."
From the above we can see that Lord Sadāśiva is in fact Lord Vishnu who creates this material world, assumes forms of Brahma Vishnu and Shiva, is Paramātmā, is beyond the moving and nonmoving creation, grants liberation.
To attain to abode of Lord Sadāśiva is more sublime than to attain the abode of Lord Brahma, although Lord Brahma's residence is considered to be the highest in the universe:
"A person who executes his occupational duty properly for one hundred births becomes qualified to occupy the post of Brahma, and if he becomes more qualified, he can approach Lord Siva." (Bhagavatam 4.24.29)
Sanatana Goswami, one of the most prominent disciples of Sri Caitanya, speaks in Brihad Bhagavatamrita about Lord Sadāśiva:
Ah! All the residents of Sivaloka are liberated souls.
I quote the opinion of Vayu Purana:
"The planet of Shiva is beyond the seven-fold coverings of the material world. It is eternal, transcendental, and full of bliss. Only the greatest servants of Shiva may enter it."
Always in the same form, Lord Shiva (Lord Sadāśiva) stays in his own abode eternally. There he is always seen by his devotees, who have faith in him alone, and who are pleased to stay in his abode.
Because you (sage Narada) are a pure devotee of Shiva you have the power to go there. Go, take shelter of Shiva, and see how he is the object of Lord Krishna's mercy.
You (Lord Sadāśiva) desire only the satisfaction of Lord Krishna. You eloquently pray only to remain a pure devotee of Lord Krishna.
Who else, filled with ecstatic love for Lord Vishnu, and clothed in only the ten directions, would dance as a madman with his wife and friends?
Sanatana Goswami even says in Brihad Bhagavatamrita that Lord Sadāśiva's wife, Goddess Uma, also can grant liberation! :
Lord Krishna is so kind to him (Lord Sadāśiva) that not only does he have the power to grant the most valuable liberation to demigods like myself, but even his wife (Goddess Uma) has that power.
From the above we can see that Sanatana Goswami holds that devotees of Lord Sadāśiva can reach his eternal abode, which indicates that this is a state of liberation. He holds that Lord Sadāśiva is a devotee of the Supreme Lord Krishna, can grant mukti or liberation and even his wife, Goddess Uma, can grant mukti!
Sanatana Goswami says in Brihad Bhagavatamrita that Lord Shiva (Lord Sadāśiva) and Lord Madana-gopala (Lord Krishna) are one and the same person that appears in two different forms:
The truth was that Lord Shiva, who increases one's love for Lord Krishna, is not different from Lord Madana-gopala, my Lord, who is more dear to me than life.
Then I told my mind that because he is the same as Lord Madana-gopala, Lord Shiva himself has performed these wonderful pastimes, although in a different form.
Originally Posted by
philosoraptor
What if someone is a Shaivite, but he worships Shiva according to the standard of bhakti taught in the bhAgavata purANa and according to rasika devotees like rUpa gosvAmI? Are you saying this would be perfectly acceptable according to orthodox gauDIya vaiShNavism?
Yes, Sanatana Goswami says in his book Hari Bhakti Vilasa, vilasa 10, text 30:
Followers of Shiva who does not distinguish between Krishna and
Shiva are considered Vaishnavas
Brihan-Narada Purana (Narada Purana 1.5.72) says:
"Those who regard god Śiva the great ruler of the world, and Visnu the Supreme Soul, with equal attitude, are indeed spoken as Bhāgavatas."
See sanskrit at "Gaudiya Grantha Mandira - Sanskrit text repository"
http://ignca.nic.in/sanskrit/hari_bhakti_vilasa_10.pdf
( http://ignca.nic.in/sanskrit.htm )
Note: http://ignca.nic.in/sanskrit.htm says that the author of this book is Gopala Bhatta Gosvamin. It seems that these two men put together this book.
Note: Those who want to read the Russian translation of Vilasa 10 online, go to the address
http://chary.ru/ru/vilasa/10-hari-bhakti-vilasa.html
This address You can insert in Google Translate to translate it into English. Translation is not perfect, but it may serve.
It seems that here in the Narada Purana, Sanatana Goswami takes the Word "Bhagavata" as a synonym for "Vaishnava" and this he applied to the followers of Shiva who does not distinguish between Krishna and Shiva.
This can be seen in the Narada Purana, where in this very chapter we read:
CHAPTER FIVE, The Description of Mārkandeya's Life
49. O Excellent sage, listen to the characteristics of the Bhāgavatas.
52. The devotees of Visnu as well as those who are devoutly attached to listening to the stories of the pious and who are of sāttvic temperament — all these are excellent Bhāgavatas.
64. Those who feel overjoyed on hearing the names of Hari and appreciate the same and those who get their hair standing on the ends through joy, all over their body (at the mention of Hari's name), are indeed excellent Bhāgavatas.
66. Those men who are delighted on inhaling the
fragrance of the Tulasi plant, or the soil at its root, are indeed excellent Bhāgavatas.
69. Those who repeat the names of Hari as well as of god Śiva, the Supreme ātman, and those who are bedecked with Rudrāksa-beads' are indeed excellent Bhāgavatas.
70. Those who worship the great god Śiva by means of sacrifices, with liberal sacrificial fees to the priests, or adore Hari the same way with great devotion, are indeed excellent Bhāgavatas.
73. Those who take delight in performing sacrificial rites in honour of Śiva and those who revel in the repetition of the mantra with five syllables (viz. Om Namah Sivāya) and those who are engaged in contemplating god Śiva are indeed excellent Bhāgavatas.
74. Those who are engaged in serving waters to the thirsty, and those who are intent on catering the gifts of cooked food (to the hungry), and who observe the ekādań vow (consisting of complete fast and meditation on the eleventh day of each fortnight, as prescribed in the Śāstras) are indeed eminently good Bhāgavatas.
Originally Posted by
philosoraptor
To the best of my knowledge, even the most Krishna-centric GV will admit that one can worship any form of nArAyaNa and attain pure love of Him.
For instance Gaudiya Vaishnavas say that even within pure love there are gradations, but maybe this is not the right place to discuss this.
Originally Posted by
philosoraptor
Now, a few points here about the concept of "nArAyaNa." GV's often refer to a "four-armed form of nArAyaNa," that is they equate the name nArAyaNa to a specific form of the Lord like four-armed form lying on milk-ocean. However, in shruti, nArAyaNa is taken to refer to the brahman who is the origin of all, the indweller of all chetanas and achetanas, and the parama puruSha of countless limbs and qualities who is addressed in the puruSha-sukta. This is an important point to understand, because SriVaishnavas and (presumably) others whose philosophy is developed on the foundation of the upaniShads, do not think of nArAyaNa as a specific form of the Lord, but rather as The Lord Himself
If this is so, I am assuming it may be, then according to Gaudiyas "Narayana" primarily refers to Lord Krishna.
Originally Posted by
philosoraptor
As an FYI, great souls like Ananta-sesha/Balaraama, Garuda, Vishvaksena, etc are not regarded as "expansions of the Lord" but as nitya-siddhas by other Vaishnavas.
To me it sounds strange idea that Lord Balarama is not expansion of the Lord because from the scriptures we can understand that he indeed is the Lord.
regards
Bookmarks