The Equality of Vishnu and Shiva

[Amrut]

If you call people who believe Vishnu is greater than Shiva "demons", they you are calling every advaitin from Adi Shankara to Madhusudhana Sarasvati a demon. Not to mention philosophical giants such as Ramanuja, Madhva, etc.

Namaste,

Not to enter into philosophical debate, but just to clear confusion.

Adi Sankara didnt called Siva as demi-God, or as inferior to viShNu. In siShNu sahasranAma bhASya, 114 rudra, Adi Sankara quotes Siva purANa and says that Siva and rudra are one and the same. Here Adi SAnkara clearly says that 'the supreme cause of all bhagavAn Siva is called as rudra'. The quote from Siva purANa includes the word 'paramakAraNa'

Adi Sankara cites as many as 12 purANA-s including 3 up-purANa-s in his viShNu sahasranAma. This including Saiva purANa-s or say all sAttvika, rAjasika, tAmasika purANa-s. None of the advaita AcArya-s actually consider any purANa-s as sAttvika, etc. They equally revere all purANa-s.

Madhusudan Saraswati wrote 2 commentaries on Siva Mahimna stotra, one praising Siva and other praising kruShNa. madhusudan sarasvatI in while concluding his Gita commentary 'GudhArtha dipikA' on chapter 15 also confirms non-difference between Siva and viShNu.

shaivaH saurashcha gaaNeshaa vaishhNavaaH shaktipUjakaaH |
bhavanti yanmayaaH sarve sohamasmi paraH shivaH ||

I am that supreme Auspicious One in whom get identified all the followers of Shiva, of the Sun, of Ganesha, of Vishnu, and the worshippers of Shakti.

Appaya dikshita, a Saiva advaitin also wrote hymns praising viShNu.

vidyAraNya svAmI in his pancadaSI mentions many forms of God like Siva, viShNu, gaNeSa, etc and says that they are all same. (I am quting form memory, but it is mostly in chapter 7, verses 100-200)

vidyAraNya svAmI has also written a commentary on sUta samhitA, a part of skanda purANa, where it says that all forms are taken by Lord Siva only.

smArta dharma worships 5 forms of god - gaNeSa, Siva, Sakti, viShNu and sUrya as one and the same. Each family member can can pick any one form as main, and keep it in center. That deity is ISTa devatA for that particular person.

From prakaraNa grantha-s it can be concluded that viShNu was the ISTa devatA of Adi Sankara, but from his independent hymns, it can be understood that Adi Sankara didnt considered difference in any form of God. Atleast not between Siva and viShNu

daxiNAmUrty stotra (commented by sUreSavarAcArya 'mAnasollAsa'
Siva pancAxara stotra (commentary by padmapAdAcArya)

In Sankara digvijay, 6.41 Adi SAnkara also praises Lord Siva

दास्स्तेऽहं देहदृष्ट्याऽस्मि शम्भो जातस्तेंऽशो जीवदृष्ट्या त्रिदृष्टे ।
सर्वस्याऽऽत्मन्नात्मदृष्ट्या त्वमेवेत्येवं में धीर्निश्चिता सर्वशास्त्रेः ॥ ६ - ४१ ॥
O Shambho ! from SarIra-bhava i.e. from standpoint of physical body, I am your servant, in that manner, O Trilochana (Lord Shiva) ! from Jiva-bhava I am your part (Ansh) and you are my anshi (whole). O the Atman of the whole jagat (Universe) ! from Atma-bhava, I am not different from you (abhinna, a-bhinna, bhinna = different). In this way, my intellect decides (is determined), in view of all shastras


In simple words:


1. From Sarira Bhava, I am servant of Lord Shiva
2. From Jiva-Bhava, I am part (ansh) and you are whole (anshi)
3. From Atma Bhava, I am not different from you.


---

Arjuna was instructed by kruShNa to meditate on Lord Siva to obtain mahApASupAtastra. After having darshan (divine vision) of Lord Siva, Arjuna in estacy exclaimed -

namah SivAya vishnurUpAya viShNave SivarUpiNe, MBh, vanaparva, 3.39.76

Salutations to Lord Siva who is in the form of Lord Vishnu and Lord Vishnu who is in the form of Siva.

Srila Prabhupada accepts all 108 upanishads. Skanda purana also mentions Siva-viShNu abheda.

---

Even if we do not accept both as same i.e. viShNu appearing as Siva, still we can still respect each other.

I am not in favour of saying someone emanating from someone and the later is a part of the former. I would think that someone appears as someone else. Everything can happen by the Lords Lila

---

The ill informed attempt to make Adi Sankara by separating him from his disciples and then to question his works was mostly done by westerner. Most westerners were paid members of British East India Co, who worked throughout their life to demean our shastras. I seriously doubt whether they even meditated according to sanAtan dharma or not. The name includes Max Muller too. He had two faces. He was paid pound 5 per sheet by British East India Co. Later on this line of thinking was carried forward by other linguists, oncologists and fact finders.

Please do not refer to their conclusions.

OM

[hinduism♥krishna]

Pranam,

Hi HK.,

I know this thread can now run in to pages....as this is not a new topic or discussed first. I raised the questions as i wanted to see if there are any 'basis' of such claims. In fact, i tried twice ( for two different posts from two different people - that such basis is resting on One Brahman and you are actually saying the same and so i take it as your admission that, its the basis of that One Brahman, Shiva and Vishnu are same. Your explanation is good for those who believe in "All is One" so all are ranked equal - provided there is no you, i, me or us - you stated again the same in this message) OTOH, as long as we pronounce You, Me, I, Shiva, Vishnu, there is a gradation even though the You, I, Me, Us, Shiva, Ganapathi, Vishnu etc. are nothing but that One!

Your claims are so vague. I never said as all is Brahman, shiva and Vishnu are one. I've proved oneness without considering 'All is Brahman'. Take some effort to read my verse from Harivansha.

Unfortunately, the basis of all is One is not expanded or allowed to be expanded to admit equality of you and me or our president and prime minister in the current state of affairs. ( What i am trying to say here is, as long as there is you, me, I, president, shiva, vishnu exists, talked about, referred, they do not enjoy equal status as a president is president and you and i are citizens with different ranks). Thats all my point!

No matter whether people differ them or not, show equal respect or not, they are always one in their true nature. Ignorant see them with form having different existence but
Dnyani knows that their consciousness/Atma is one. That's why Shiva says Shiva is Vishnu. Vishnu is Shiva. Those who see difference falls down to the hell. This is the view of scriptures.

[R Gitananda]

Dear Prabhu, Think you for sharing those inspiring quotes about Parabrahman. However I think you misunderstood me.

... And dear Prabhu you can also believe the bhagavata purana and believe that the earth is flat carried by 4 elephants Because irrespective of the fact that it is untruth as long as it gives you a peace of mind its totally fine right?? ...

It gives me peace of mind to think that the personalities of godhead are not arguing with each other over which one is the greatest but instead always respect each other as supreme. I embrace those passages that indicate that.

If I lived in a time before we understood that the earth was round then I would probably have believed that it was flat because that was the prevailing belief at the time. The Bhagavatam is a work of its time. Our understanding of our universe changes with evidence but IMO the principles of devotion remain a constant over time; therefore it is my responsibility to choose what to take and what to leave alone (for instance I think that the Uddhava Gita has some good advice on devotion but I ignore the part about not cleaning the teeth).

...
May be you think Bhagvata is greater than Mahabharata but itihasas are always considered above puranas ...

I think that the itihasas and the puranas serve different purposes and I will leave it to others to decide which they prefer. For me - whenever and wherever I find something inspiring - even in allegory - I embrace it.

Hari Aum

[Amrut]

Namaste,

IMO, What Grames ji is saying that in vyavahArika satya, practical experience, no two tatva-s are same, there cannot be two prime ministers. While from pArmArthika satya, absolute reality, there is no second to experience and say, Shiva and Vishnu are same.

It is a technical point. adherants of mAdhvAcArya say that there is panch-bheda

There is difference between,

brahma-jiva
brahma-jada
jada-jiva
jiva-jiva
jada-jada

(Pancha-Bheda), five fundamental differences:

(i) the distinction between God and the individual soul,
(ii) the distinction between God and matter,
(iii) the distinction between the individual soul and matter,
(iv) the distinction between one soul and another and
(v) the distinction between one material thing and another.

(Please correct me if I am wrong.)

OM

[Amrut]

Dear Prabhu, Think you for sharing those inspiring quotes about Parabrahman. However I think you misunderstood me.

It gives me peace of mind to think that the personalities of godhead are not arguing with each other over which one is the greatest but instead always respect each other as supreme. I embrace those passages that indicate that. That was also the context of the question.

If I lived in a time before we understood that the earth was round then I would probably have believed that it was flat because that was the prevailing belief at the time. The Bhagavatam is a work of its time. Our understanding of our universe changes with evidence but IMO the principles of devotion remain a constant over time; therefore it is my responsibility to choose what to take and what to leave alone (for instance I think that the Uddhava Gita has some good advice on devotion but I ignore the part about not cleaning the teeth).



I think that the itihasas and the puranas serve different purposes and I will leave it to others to decide which they prefer. For me - whenever and wherever I find something inspiring - even in allegory - I embrace it.

Hari Aum

Hari OM

[emphasis mine]

EDIT:

itihAsa is a special status, though purANa-s also talk about history, there may be an element of imagination for purpose of bhakti. Ignore that should be ignored and grasp that should be grasped, like honey bee, unlike bees, it does not sit on rotten flesh

I agree

Pranams

[grames]

Dear Amrut.,

You are right! For an Advaitin, vyavahArika satya is something to be transgressed and as Shankara says, as soon as you transgress this, there is no difference between worshiper and worshiped! When you are still in the spell of Maya, you have to obey the vyavahArika satya and in this realm, there is difference and differences brings in ranks and order. ( Guru disciple exists here, day and night happens here, Lord and Devotee are in this realm, Shiva and Vishnu belongs to this realm)

Again, this is only for Advaitin or those who believe in Nirguna Brahman as the only Satya.

[Amrut]

Dear Amrut.,

You are right! For an Advaitin, vyavahArika satya is something to be transgressed and as Shankara says, as soon as you transgress this, there is no difference between worshiper and worshiped! When you are still in the spell of Maya, you have to obey the vyavahArika satya and in this realm, there is difference and differences brings in ranks and order. ( Guru disciple exists here, day and night happens here, Lord and Devotee are in this realm, Shiva and Vishnu belongs to this realm)

Again, this is only for Advaitin or those who believe in Nirguna Brahman as the only Satya.

Namaste Grames ji,

I am curious to see how HLK responds. Ganeshamylord may also jump into this intellectual exercise.

OM

[hinduism♥krishna]

PranAm

When you are still in the spell of Maya, you have to obey the vyavahArika satya and in this realm, there is difference and differences brings in ranks and order. ( Guru disciple exists here, day and night happens here, Lord and Devotee are in this realm, Shiva and Vishnu belongs to this realm)

Why one should obey Maya if he knows Atma is untouched by maya? There's no need to judge everything on your own. Let scriptures speak their own way. In Uddhava Gita, Narada says "One should worship Vishnu by considering himself, Vishnu and Guru as One."

Again, this is only for Advaitin or those who believe in Nirguna Brahman as the only Satya.

I would say this is only for real vaishnawa who's established himself in oneness. Nirguna vaishnawism is out of the scope of dual minds. I think You should read some discourses of krishna mentioning what's the real devotion of Vishnu.

Dhanyavad.

[ganeshamylord]

If I lived in a time before we understood that the earth was round then I would probably have believed that it was flat because that was the prevailing belief at the time. The Bhagavatam is a work of its time. Our understanding of our universe changes with evidence but IMO the principles of devotion remain a constant over time; therefore it is my responsibility to choose what to take and what to leave alone (for instance I think that the Uddhava Gita has some good advice on devotion but I ignore the part about not cleaning the teeth).

Hari Aum

Namaste prabhu
But however the point is not about me or you thinking about the shape of earth. The point is about the truth.We both dont claim we are the supreme absolute truth and that we know god and neither do we make our own presumptions about His form and names. But bhagavata does so and it calls itself the best purana speaking of truth./However any book, in this case a purana says it knows God or calls some person as God then it better know the universe too. We cant say Bhagavata isnt in our time so it gave the wrong depictions of the shape of earth because it calls itself timeless. If Bhagvata knows the form of God isnt it ridiculous it doesnt know the shape of earth? Thats tantamount to saying i know a+b2 but i dont know 1+1=2 because earth is a tiny part of God too.
If a medical book claims to know the body and yet prints wrong notions about the shape of liver or brain then it will be immediately repealed and corrected. But the problem with fanaticism of puranas is it can neither be revoked nor repealed but should only followed by closing our intelligence.
And science is always open to corrections and admits to being restricted
but a purana always claims to be perfect and brainwashes its followers to believe it as truth despite the truth being the other way round.
That means two things. Either the purana is an imagination just like how it imagined the shape of earth it imagined the shape of god too and one is already proven to be false the other might be false too.
Second since it propagates varnashrama or caste system it might have been written by brahmins who wanted to prove themselves superior because as far i know the supreme soul has better things to do than propagate caste system.
And the proof also lies in the pudding. As far as i know i have seen people like vivekananda or paramhansa yogananda or ramakrishna or ganapati muni and they never utter one ill word about any soul or sect and were always open to a better society. But i have seen those who believe in personal forms always abuse the others and they have no spiritual significance but a big loud mouth to sing and abuse others and two legs to dance. So many people got killed due to shaivaite vaishnavaite wars//// also I have read statements of a personal form worshipper who even said a womans brain is half that of a man and women enjoy getting raped and that moon is farther away from the sun. and He is self titled acharya by his own sect and i dont think he had any qualities of devotees that Krishna himself mentions in His gita....
My personal contention with people who follow puranas is just this. Puranas are like 1+1=2 of spirituality. They were introduced for laymen. But now some fanatics started calling puranas as the ultimatum and avoid the actual vedanta and that pains me. Due to this fights about names forms occur. If only people realize there is a lot more to spirituality than just singing and dancing in front of deities the world would be a better place


But an itihasa is different and it is more of a report than some imagination.
But if a book is considered supreme just because it bestows peace is it wrong on my part that if i consider harry potter to be supreme as that gives peace to me too?

[ganeshamylord]

Dear Amrut.,

For an Advaitin, vyavahArika satya is something to be transgressed and as Shankara says, as soon as you transgress this, there is no difference between worshiper and worshiped! When you are still in the spell of Maya, you have to obey the vyavahArika satya and in this realm, there is difference and differences brings in ranks and order. ( Guru disciple exists here, day and night happens here, Lord and Devotee are in this realm, Shiva and Vishnu belongs to this realm)

Again, this is only for Advaitin or those who believe in Nirguna Brahman as the only Satya.

Namaste
So that means you do accept that form worship and duality is due to maya. So even if a person fails to realize the non duality there nothing wrong in atleast accepting that non duality is better and the final destination.. I might not have seen Mars due to my limited vision but the least i could do is accept that there is something beyond earth.
But problem with form worshippers is not only they taint the truth by adding their own personal emotional spice ups but also state that duality is also a part of God.
Thats like saying earth is the only planet and there is no Mars and since i cannot see Mars it doesnt exist! So the best such a person do is shut his mouth or stick to describing the beauty of earth instead of proclaiming that earth is the only planet in the universe.
And here not only do form worshippers delude themselves they delude others by preaching that they are the only correct ones and also proclaim advaita to be "mayavadi" and send these false signals to all beguile newcomers and succeed in numbing the intellectual capacity of beginners and destroy their quest for real spirituality by limiting them to a form