Page 26 of 29 FirstFirst ... 162223242526272829 LastLast
Results 251 to 260 of 288

Thread: Re: LORd SIVA : A Gaudiya Vaisnava Perspective

  1. #251

    Re: LORd SIVA : A Gaudiya Vaisnava Perspective

    Quote Originally Posted by philosoraptor View Post
    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.

    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.
    praNAm

    Yes, I agree. The topic of ras tattva need not be discussed here.

    I love Balaji. He is the same One. I go to visit Him. They (all VishNu tattva forms) are all the same Lord. Now here is the secret:

    When the Lord appears in a different form, the devotee also [may] change form

    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.
    No, SadAshiva, a form of VishNu, plays the role of His devotee. This is the only Shiva we care about. Since He plays a role of devotee, we respect that role.
    Just as Mahaprabhu, although KRshNa in the mood of Radha, plays the role of a saint, a pure devotee, and a Guru. So we respect that role and His preference to be treated as such.

    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.
    Yes, some differences in siddhAnta. Garuda, Vishvaksena are not expansions, they are nitya siddha devotees, but BalarAm is a svamsha avatAr becs KRshNa, VAsudev is the source, acc. to GauDIya at least.
    In fact He is one of the chaturvyuha - Vasudev-SankarshaN(BalrAm)-Pradyumna-Aniruddha

    chaturmUrtischaturbAhushchaturvyUhashchaturgatih:
    chaturAtmA chaturbhAvashchaturvedavidekapAd || 82 ||

    lokAdhyakshah: surAdhyaksho dharmAdhyakshah: krutAkRtah:
    chaturAtmA chaturvyuhashchaturdMstrashchaturbhujah: || 15 ||
    (VishnuSahastranAma)

    Please note that I am just "thinking out loud"
    I do that quite often on HDF. They must be sick of me.

    and have no desire to offend.
    There was no need to add that

    _/\_

    Jai Shri KRshNa
    Last edited by smaranam; 26 January 2013 at 03:41 AM. Reason: VishNuSahastranAma corrections
    || Shri KRshNArpaNamastu ||

  2. #252
    Join Date
    December 2012
    Posts
    552
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: LORd SIVA : A Gaudiya Vaisnava Perspective

    Namaste philosoraptor

    Here I will quote and discuss what you said to smaranam in the previous posts.

    Quote 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?
    Quote 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
    Quote 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
    Quote 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.

    Quote 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.
    Quote 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
    Quote 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.
    Quote 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.

    Quote 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.

    Quote 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.

    Quote 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.

    Quote 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

  3. #253
    Join Date
    December 2012
    Posts
    552
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: LORd SIVA : A Gaudiya Vaisnava Perspective

    Namaste smaranam

    Quote Originally Posted by smaranam View Post
    Superior can indeed be relative. What appeals to one jiva as superior and complete may not necessarily to another. What holds priority for one may not for another.

    Then again, the Gaudiyas for instance, will say, that even within VishNu tattva, KRshNa is the highest form and higher than the four armed NArAyaNA - this is with respect to (in context of) ras tattva. KRshNa has/brings highest 'ras' owing to His mAdhurya - sweetness.

    "Hey, my mommy is the best in the whole world! "
    Mommy-tattva?
    The point is that what I have said in previous posts as regards the position of Lord Krishna was not from the point of view of one's own personal experience or one's own personal appeal.
    I tried to give the Gaudiya Vaishnava review as to the position of Lord Krishna, and this review is based on careful analysis of the scriptures. Gaudiyas did not write so many books just to shout "Hey, my mommy is the best in the whole world!" or just to establish their own "Mommy-tattva", but to give a review of Lord Krishna after a thorough analysis of the scriptures.

    Unique status of Lord Krishna in relation to other forms of Lord Vishnu is not reflected only in rasa, but in many aspects. A hint of this I tried to give in my posts
    http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/sho...7404#post97404

    and also
    http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/sho...7737#post97737

    If you want to get more information about this subject matter I can recommend you a book Laghu bhagavatamrta by Rupa Gosvami and especially Krishna sandarbha by Jiva Gosvami.

    regards

  4. #254

    Re: LORd SIVA : A Gaudiya Vaisnava Perspective

    Quote Originally Posted by brahma jijnasa View Post
    Namaste smaranam



    The point is that what I have said in previous posts as regards the position of Lord Krishna was not from the point of view of one's own personal experience or one's own personal appeal.
    I tried to give the Gaudiya Vaishnava review as to the position of Lord Krishna, and this review is based on careful analysis of the scriptures. Gaudiyas did not write so many books just to shout "Hey, my mommy is the best in the whole world!" or just to establish their own "Mommy-tattva", but to give a review of Lord Krishna after a thorough analysis of the scriptures.

    Unique status of Lord Krishna in relation to other forms of Lord Vishnu is not reflected only in rasa, but in many aspects. A hint of this I tried to give in my posts
    http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/sho...7404#post97404

    and also
    http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/sho...7737#post97737

    If you want to get more information about this subject matter I can recommend you a book Laghu bhagavatamrta by Rupa Gosvami and especially Krishna sandarbha by Jiva Gosvami.

    regards
    I understand what you are saying, and did not at all mean to portray that GauDIya VaishNav tattva siddhAnta or Jiva Goswami's 6 volumes of Bhagvad sandarbha are any way not based on shastra. Laghu BhagvatamRta is nice, i haven't read it. Just some reference shlokas.

    However, this is the pUrNa purushottam BhagvAn subject that we cannot impose on a diverse group such as HDF or make them understand, not even on other VaishNavs - even if this is a Gaudiya Vaishnav forum/section. Particularly regarding the different forms of that One VishNu tattva. I mentioned rasa because a qn on "devotion to any VishNu-tattva form in the same mood as for KRshNa" was mentioned.

    This thread is not so long winding without reason.

    Seeing it from that angle, you can say i was playing diplomat if you like. In fact, making that first post was a terrible idea because look what happened - it gave rise to N other posts. It is hard to partition a personal intuition from a particular siddhanta.

    However, although my Lord, prANanAth and sarvasva is KRshNa, He does come in other forms. He is sweet. Who says there is no mAdhurya in NArAyaN? This statement does not defy the GV siddhanta, it is just a harmless statement.

    _/\_

    om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya ~
    Last edited by smaranam; 28 January 2013 at 03:44 AM.
    || Shri KRshNArpaNamastu ||

  5. #255

    Re: LORd SIVA : A Gaudiya Vaisnava Perspective

    Hare KRshNa

    I just wanted to also mention that when i wrote "my mommy is the best" i was not thinking of GaiDIya VaishNavs at all. On the contrary, was alluding to all the others, including Shaivas. Like a statement of understanding - that each group is going to think their Ishta is the best.

    Thanks for all the pointers and references.

    _/\_

    om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya
    || Shri KRshNArpaNamastu ||

  6. #256

    Re: LORd SIVA : A Gaudiya Vaisnava Perspective

    Pranams, thank you for your response. I have a few comments and questions.

    Quote Originally Posted by brahma jijnasa View Post
    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.


    In that case, would it be fair to say that the trimurthi Shiva is a jIva while the Sadaashiva residing beyond the material world is Vishnu Himself, according to Gaudiya Vaishnavism?

    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."


    But the problem with these references is that they do not assert sameness between the three entities, only that they are all of one purpose. This is for small-minded people who think that worship of one of the three will empower them to be inimical to Vishnu, as for example in the case of Hiranyakashipu and Ravana who do austerities to gain the favor of Brahma and Shiva and then use the benefits to maintain hostility towards Vishnu.

    The Bhaagavatam repeatedly teaches that both Brahmaa and Shiva are devotees of Vishnu. Brahmaa is questioned by Naarada about the existence of one superior even to him and he readily acknowledges the point that Naaraayana is his own master (bhAgavatam 2.5.1-12). The same point is made by Shiva himself when he states that he always meditates on Vaasudeva in bhAgavatam 4.3.23:
    sattvaḿviśuddhaḿvasudeva-śabditaḿ yadīyatetatrapumānapāvṛtaḥ . Thus, interpreting your verses as somehow establishing sameness would make the bhaagavatam internally contradictory, a major problem if you ascribe a status to it comparable to shruti.

    They are also "same" in another, more subtle sense. Because Naaraayana is the paramAtmA indwelling within even devas like brahmA and shiva, therefore they are not different from Him and can be said to be Him in the same sense that jIvas are Him, universe is Him , etc - because He is their innermost controller and they are thus brahman by the principle of coordinate predication. This paradigm of oneness and difference gives a clear understanding of how these different beings are different even as they are sometimes said to be the same.


    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.


    But this verse is the one used by GV's to claim that Sadaashiva is non-different from Vishnu. Now you are saying that it refers to the jIva Shiva. Isn't that a little contradictory? If BrS 5.45 refers to jIva shiva, then why postulate the existence of a Sadaashiva who is non-different from Vishnu? Moreover, why does BrS acknowledge sameness and difference? If what you said is true, that it should refer to Sadaashiva is who absolutely same as Naaraayana and/or jIva/trimurthi Shiva who is different from Naaraayana in the way all jiivas are different from Naarayana. It seems like the BrS is talking about both Shivas in one sense, but even then I can't understand why it uses milk-yogurt analogy when it is in fact 3 entities (Krishna, Sadaashiva, Shiva) that are being compared, not 2

    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.


    This is a bit hard to accept. In the Raamaayana, we see verses showing that Raama worshipped Naaraayana. But this is in keeping with His role as a kshatriya. Outside of His avatAras who worship just to set the example, I know of no explicit shAstric pramANa showing that one form of viShNu worships another (I welcome corrections though).

    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)


    First point - how do you know this is Sadaashiva? Aren't you assuming that based on the content of the prayers? Not that I have a problem with that - I just wanted to know if it is explicitly mentioned. Second, since Sadaashiva resides beyond the material world, and the churning of the ocean for nectar took place in the world of the devas (the material world), wouldn't it be more likely that the Shiva who swallowed poison is the trimurthi Shiva residing on Kalias?

    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."

    Omkar also quoted this mantra on another thread. I have no problem whatsoever accepting that nArAyaNa has a three-eyed form, since there can be only one Supreme Lord. But, I cannot see how this being could be the same as the Shiva who is the mind-born son of Brahmaa, and who states that he always meditates on Vaasudeva.

    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)


    The other point I was going to mention is that most of your proofs rely on quoting smRiti rather than shruti. Not that this is an automatic deal-breaker for me, since there is some room for debate regarding the meaning of some shruti-vAkyas, and smRiti is supposed to help us with that. There is no question that nArAyaNa aka brahman is also referred to in shruti as "rudra," "maheshvara," and so on just as He is also referred to as "indra," "agni," "varuNa," and so on. Now, for me the problem becomes one of assuming that the references to Him as "rudra" are somehow more meaningful than the references to Him as "indra" (or even for that matter, as "thousand-eyed" which is an identifying mark for the deva indra). In other words, would you argue that Indra and Agni are also Lord but not Lord? I doubt this, as everything I know about Gaudiya Vaishnavism indicates that they discourage worship of anya-devatas. In fact, the shruti itself makes it very clear that the anya-devatas who share names with nArAyaNa are *different* from Him. No one postulates the existence of a form of nArAyaNa that is Indra but not Indra, and so on. So why do so for Shiva? In fact, in the nArAyaNa upaniShad which is accepted by both GV's and mAdhvas (not to be confused with mahAnArAyaNa upaniShad of the taittirIya AraNyaka), there is the first mantra which states that nArAyaNa is the source of all other devas including rudra.

    "Narayana desired to create people. Because of this thought, Soul (prana) rose from him. Mind and all body parts, sky, air, light, water and the earth which can carry all these created beings took their form. From Narayana, Brahma was born. From Narayana, Rudra was born. From Narayana, Indra was born .From Narayana those people who rule these human beings were born. From Narayana, the twelve suns, eleven Rudras, Eight Vasus and all those meters (for writing) were born. All these function because of Narayana. All these end in Narayana. "


    This is quoted by your own Prabhupada, I believe in his Bhagavad-Gita As It Is. The point is, why then postulate the existence of form of the Lord Sadaashiva who is a transformation of Vishnu? And if you are just saying that Lord has a form called Sadaashiva and this is different from Shiva in material world who is a jIva, then why not just say that, rather than argue for a sort of oneness and difference relationship?

    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."


    Could you please tell me what specific verse of vAyu purANa this is?

    Rest of posting deleted for brevity, but I did read it all and you've given me something to think about.

    regards,

    Philosoraptor

    "Wise men speak because they have something to say. Fools speak because they have to say something." - Plato

  7. #257
    Join Date
    June 2012
    Location
    Mumbai, India
    Age
    29
    Posts
    1,088
    Rep Power
    1128

    Re: LORd SIVA : A Gaudiya Vaisnava Perspective

    Quote Originally Posted by brahma jijnasa View Post


    You say: "This is accepted even by Gaudiyas"
    That's news to me. Can you point out somewhere in the writings of the Gaudiya Vaishnavas example of this?

    As far as I'm acquainted with the philosophy of Gaudiya Vaishnavas, none of the verses from Padma Purana, Brahmanda Purana and Garga Samhita that I mentioned in the post
    http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/sho...7737#post97737

    are explained as a figure of speech.

    regards
    The point i was making is that these texts are NOT treated as Arthavada by Gaudiyas whereas other texts belonging to the same category are. I am basing this observation on an old thread in another now defunct forum where a knowledgeable gaudiya member said so. i have not seen any discussion of Arthavada in Gaudiya works otherwise.

    Quote Originally Posted by brahma jijnasa View Post


    Where is this discussion taking place?

    regards
    http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=10407
    namastE astu bhagavan vishveshvarAya mahAdevAya tryaMbakAya|
    tripurAntakAya trikAgnikAlAya kAlAgnirudrAya nIlakaNThAya mRtyuJNjayAya sarveshvarAya sadAshivAya shrIman mAhAdevAya ||

    Om shrImAtrE namah

    sarvam shrI umA-mahEshwara parabrahmArpaNamastu


    A Shaivite library
    http://www.scribd.com/HinduismLibrary

  8. #258
    Join Date
    June 2012
    Location
    Mumbai, India
    Age
    29
    Posts
    1,088
    Rep Power
    1128

    Re: LORd SIVA : A Gaudiya Vaisnava Perspective

    Quote Originally Posted by philosoraptor View Post

    Omkar also quoted this mantra on another thread. I have no problem whatsoever accepting that nArAyaNa has a three-eyed form, since there can be only one Supreme Lord. But, I cannot see how this being could be the same as the Shiva who is the mind-born son of Brahmaa, and who states that he always meditates on Vaasudeva.
    I have another quote showing that shiva can grant liberation.

    Jabala upanishad(accepted by Shankara, Ramanuja,Madhva)

    SECTION III.

    1.Next, the Brahmacharins addressed him: "Tell us by what holy recitation (japa) one attains immortality"?

    2.Yajnavalkya replied: "By Satarudriya (Rudradhyaya). These are the names of the immortal one. Reciting these, one verily attains immortality.

    Thus there is shruti proof that reciting the names of shiva leads to liberation.

    The Shatarudriya can be read here- http://saranaagathi.files.wordpress....h_meanings.pdf

    As you can see, trhere is no doubt at all as to whose names are contained in it.
    namastE astu bhagavan vishveshvarAya mahAdevAya tryaMbakAya|
    tripurAntakAya trikAgnikAlAya kAlAgnirudrAya nIlakaNThAya mRtyuJNjayAya sarveshvarAya sadAshivAya shrIman mAhAdevAya ||

    Om shrImAtrE namah

    sarvam shrI umA-mahEshwara parabrahmArpaNamastu


    A Shaivite library
    http://www.scribd.com/HinduismLibrary

  9. #259

    Re: LORd SIVA : A Gaudiya Vaisnava Perspective

    As I've had some time to crystalize my though process on this issue, I think my basic objection is, "Why describe Shiva as being both different and non-different from Vishnu?"

    If you accept the existence of:
    (1) a "sadAshiva" who is the Lord Himself, residing on the transcedental plane, then He is absolutely non-different from nArAyaNa and no hint of any distinctions need be made
    (2) a "shiva" who is a jIvAtma residing on mount Kailas in this material world, then he is absolutely "different" from nArAyaNa, to the extent that any jIva is different from the Lord.

    So the point is, (1) and (2) are clearly different from each other, so why argue that Shiva is non-different and yet different? One Shiva is non-different from brahman in this view while the other Shiva is different from brahman. Right?

    It's not at all troubling to me to see shruti refer to Brahman by names normally associated with Shiva. For starters, the shruti also refers to Brahman by names associated with Vishnu, and also with names (and even identifying marks) normally associated with other deities. Brahman must be complete in all respects, so the idea of Brahman aka nArAyaNa having a form identified as "sadAshiva" is not necessarily troubling to me personally. However, it is very clear from the itihAsa/purANa-s that viShNu and shiva are two different beings - hence this latter shiva associated with all the common identifying marks like being the husband of durgA, the father of kartikeya & ganesha, residing on Kailas, etc cannot be the same as brahman.
    Philosoraptor

    "Wise men speak because they have something to say. Fools speak because they have to say something." - Plato

  10. #260
    Join Date
    December 2012
    Posts
    552
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: LORd SIVA : A Gaudiya Vaisnava Perspective

    Quote Originally Posted by Omkara View Post
    The point i was making is that these texts are NOT treated as Arthavada by Gaudiyas whereas other texts belonging to the same category are. I am basing this observation on an old thread in another now defunct forum where a knowledgeable gaudiya member said so. i have not seen any discussion of Arthavada in Gaudiya works otherwise.
    Alright then, we'll wait until "knowledgeable gaudiya member" provide us with some examples of the same category.
    Frankly speaking, I think we'll have to wait forever ... because as far as I know there are no such examples.

    regards

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •