Gaudiya Vaishnava Conception of Shiva

As my previous thread was hijacked by irrelevant postings, I am starting this again with an attempt at stimulating a serious discussion on the subject.

I request input from knowledgeable Gaudiya Vaishnavas on the subject. Please, if you are not fluent in Gaudiya Vaishnava siddhanta, and/or are not able to write in grammatically correct English, then I request that you refrain from commenting.

Vaishnavism is distinguished by its belief in Vishnu as the Supreme Deity, in contrast to other deities who are regarded as subordinate entities. In just about all other Vaishnava traditions with which I am familiar, Shiva is NOT equated to Vishnu, and worship of Shiva, while certainly auspicious in its own way, is NOT regarded as equal in benefits to the worship of Vishnu.

Now in regards to Shiva's supremacy or lack thereof vis-a-vis Vishnu, the problem that occurs in considering Shiva to be just another form of Vishnu is that the shAstras treat them as two different entities. This is so regardless of whether you are reading shruti or smriti, sAttvik vs tAmasic purAnas, etc. Hence, it seems that one must necessarily choose one or the other viewpoint - either Vishnu is supreme and the Shaivite verses are sectarian interpolation, or vice-versa. They can't both be supreme, because they are two different deities.

The same logic is also used to establish the difference between jiva and brahman. We cannot simply gloss over the stated differences between Vishnu and Shiva, for then by the same logic we could also gloss over the differences between jiva and brahman and come to the conclusion of mayavada, which I am sure no one wants. My point here is that there must be consistency in the principle of interpretation.

The evidence from the Bhagavata is interesting. On one hand Brahma addresses Shiva with adjectives that reference the Supreme Lord. Yet on the other hand, the same Bhagavata teaches us that Shiva came under the delusion of maya when confronted with Lord's Mohini-murthi. These two pramAnas are contradictory. He cannot be the supreme Lord and yet fall victim to maya. Strictly speaking according to Vedantic principles, one would be forced to accept only that which is consistent with shruti.

If you say supreme Lord can come under illusion, then by the same logic you must accept the Advaitin's logic when he says the same about jiva being brahman under illusion, etc. If it is unacceptable to you that jiva can be the result of brahman coming under illusion, then by the same logic you cannot argue that Shiva is Vishnu coming under illusion. The point is that it is mayavada either way!

In the previous thread, someone quoted from an obscure smriti explaining that Shiva was a "transformed portion" of Vishnu or something similar. Now, the problem with this position is that it contradicts the well-known Vedantic principle that Brahman (Vishnu) is changeless - He does not "transform" into something that is less than Himself, and trying to argue that He does is tacit endorsement of mayavada. Why not then argue that Brahman "transforms" and becomes the jivas? You can surely appreciate the slippery slope upon which this argument takes you.

The following pramanas were also offered:

They are two different dieties yes.

But Sadashiva is nondifferent from Sri Visnu.

 

Brahma Vaivarta Purana (Prakriti Khanda 2.56.61)

svapne jagarane sasvath Krsna dhyana ratah Sivah

yatha Krsnas tatha sambhur na bhedo madhavesayoh

"Sleeping or awake, Siva is constantly absorbed in meditation on Sri Krsna. As is Sri

Krsna, so is Sambhu; there is no difference between Madhava and Isa."

 

 

 

Skanda Upanishad (8-9.)

“I bow to Siva of the form of Visnu and Visnu who is Siva; Visnu is Siva’s heart and

Siva, Visnu’s. Just as Visnu is full of Siva, so is Siva full of Visnu. As I see no

difference, I am well all my life.”

 

 

Sadashiva is visnu tattva...according to the gaudiyas atleast.

Now, even though I admit I have not examined context of these relatively obscure smritis, I cannot see (and I doubt anyone here can either) how these references reconcile the position of Siva with that of being supreme deity and yet not supreme. The second reference seems to be saying that Vishnu and Shiva meditate on each other - this is illogical if one or the other is the supreme deity and the other the devotee. If Vishnu and Shiva are two different forms of the same Deity, then saying that they each worship the other is an extremely roundabout way of explaining that - frankly it does not follow. The first reference says that Shiva meditates on Sri Krishna, but then goes on to say that there is "no difference" between the two. Now, if there is "no difference" between the meditator and the object of meditation, then this logic can be used to justify mayavada. If "no difference" on the other hand refers to their being no enmity between them, then this would more logically fit the context of one being the devotee of the other. Besides which, we cannot just say there is "no difference" between them, because that contradicts the shruti:

asya devasya mīḷhuṣo vayā viṣṇoreṣasya prabhṛthe havirbhiḥ |

vide hi rudro rudriyaṃ mahitvaṃ yāsiṣṭaṃ vartiraśvināvirāvat ||

With offerings I propitiate the branches of this swift-moving God, the bounteous Viṣṇu.Hence Rudra gained his Rudra-strength: O Aśvins, ye sought the house that hath celestial viands.

(Rig Veda 7.40.5)

If Shiva is another form of Vishnu, then why would he get his strength by propitiating Vishnu? He should already have his strength, i.e. it should be an intrinsic quality of being who he is.

This is clearly a statement of *difference.*

I am trying to determine if there is a clear and consistent way to understand Shiva's position in the Gaudiya worldview without making obvious errors in scriptural interpretation. Perhaps there is, and perhaps there is not, but what I have seen so far leads me to believe that the Gaudiyas have endorsed contradictory viewpoints regarding Shiva, in contrast to their viewpoint about all other devatas which is that they are clearly mortals. Perhaps this is an attempt to be accomodating to Shaivites? Again, I request knowledgeable GVs to comment with specific references to their pUrvAchAryas' writings on the subject.

Raghu you look so much confused to me,this is 3rd similar thread which one has started or expecting answers from others.Better do a meditation and offer a real prayer to God whom you offer your prayers to his devine feet thus you will have an asnwer which you are so desparate to get.In my terms you are now remembering ShriShiva in a unique way so expect his mercy on you.

Raghu you look so much confused to me,this is 3rd similar thread which one has started or expecting answers from others.Better do a meditation and offer a real prayer to God whom you offer your prayers to his devine feet thus you will have an asnwer which you are so desparate to get.In my terms you are now remembering ShriShiva in a unique way so expect his mercy on you.

This is only the second thread I have started on this subject, the first one having been hijacked by political postings.

I do offer my prayers to the Lord's divine feet, but I do not accept advice on sadhana as a substitute for an explanation on siddhanta. If someone is trying to explain something (i.e. the alleged oneness and difference of Vishnu and Shiva), then it follows that we are meant to understand it. Otherwise, no point in trying to take a position that you cannot explain. The Gaudiya Vaishnava conception of oneness and differences of Vishnu and Shiva seems to be a very vague idea to reconcile what are obviously contradictory viewpoints in the Hindu tradition. The underlying assumptions that rationalize this seem no different that the ones used by mayavadis to rationalize "oneness" of jiva and brahman.

But as always, I am happy to update my thinking - hence this thread.

I do offer my prayers to the Lord's divine feet, but I do not accept advice on sadhana as a substitute for an explanation on siddhanta. If someone is trying to explain something (i.e. the alleged oneness and difference of Vishnu and Shiva), then it follows that we are meant to understand it. Otherwise, no point in trying to take a position that you cannot explain. The Gaudiya Vaishnava conception of oneness and differences of Vishnu and Shiva seems to be a very vague idea to reconcile what are obviously contradictory viewpoints in the Hindu tradition. The underlying assumptions that rationalize this seem no different that the ones used by mayavadis to rationalize "oneness" of jiva and brahman.

 

 

the milk and yoghurt example doesnt solve your question does it.

It is confusing since there is shiva rudra maheshwar sadashiva paratpar shiva all these are not exactly same

If Shiva is another form of Vishnu, then why would he get his strength by propitiating Vishnu? He should already have his strength, i.e. it should be an intrinsic quality of being who he is.

 

shiva is second from vishnu taht is why he takes power from him.

this is from a krishna site.

i suppose this is gaudiya vaishnav

The milk and yogurt example is problematic because Brahman is supposed to be changeless as per Vedantic principles. If Brahman transforms itself to become something less than itself, then not only is this against the principle of Vedanta, but it also opens the door to mayavada - i.e. why not then that jiva is actually Brahman and "transformed?"

Saying that Shiva is second to Vishnu is fine, but then why claim that Shiva and Vishnu are one? These are contradictory points of view.

Your graphics above hold that "Param Shiva" is a manifestation of Brahma. So that is a whole new view which does not help one way or another here. I do not think this is even Gaudiya in origin.

If Brahman transforms itself to become something less than itself, then not only is this against the principle of Vedanta,

Brahman can do anything isnt that vedik.

Why cant you take shiva as a manifestation of brahman.

Saying that Shiva is second to Vishnu is fine, but then why claim that Shiva and Vishnu are one? These are contradictory points of view.

This has been written in many places but that is why it is said they are one because the curd is nor different from milk and not the same.

Not only this even brahma vishnu and mahesh all three are called one.

Here is a nice verse that reveals some valuable insight into the greatness of Lord Siva.

Lord Siva is very dear to the Gaudiya Vaishnavas. He is well loved, venerated and in fact worshiped.

The Gaudiya acharyas have several times stated that Siva-tattva is something that is very difficult to explain because of the very narrow difference between Siva and Vishnu.

Siva-tattva is perhaps the most enigmatic concept in all of Hindu theology as there is the full form of Siva-tattva and partial manifestations of Siva tattva in the form of the Rudras who are most often empowerd Jivas.

Siva is a tattva. There are full forms of that tattva and there are partial manifestation of Siva-tattva. So, the subject of Siva-tattva is not something that is easily dealt with in a few forums posts. Siva-tattva is inconceivable to the conditioned living beings.

Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 8.7.21

 

śrī-prajāpataya ūcuḥ

 

deva-deva mahā-deva

bhūtātman bhūta-bhāvana

trāhi naḥ śaraṇāpannāḿs

trailokya-dahanād viṣāt

 

SYNONYMS

 

śrī-prajāpatayaḥ ūcuḥ — the prajāpatis said; deva-deva — O Lord Mahādeva, best of the demigods; mahā-deva — O great demigod; bhūta-ātman — O life and soul of everyone in this world; bhūta-bhāvana — O the cause of the happiness and flourishing of all of them; trāhi — deliver; naḥ — us; śaraṇa-āpannān — who have taken shelter at your lotus feet; trailokya — of the three worlds; dahanāt — which is causing the burning; viṣāt — from this poison.

 

TRANSLATION

 

The prajāpatis said: O greatest of all demigods, Mahādeva, Supersoul of all living entities and cause of their happiness and prosperity, we have come to the shelter of your lotus feet. Now please save us from this fiery poison, which is spreading all over the three worlds.

 

PURPORT

 

Since Lord Śiva is in charge of annihilation, why should he be approached for protection, which is given by Lord Viṣṇu? Lord Brahmā creates, and Lord Śiva annihilates, but both Lord Brahmā and Lord Śiva are incarnations of Lord Viṣṇu and are known as śaktyāveśa-avatāras. They are endowed with a special power like that of Lord Viṣṇu, who is actually all-pervading in their activities. Therefore whenever prayers for protection are offered to Lord Śiva, actually Lord Viṣṇu is indicated, for otherwise Lord Śiva is meant for destruction. Lord Śiva is one of the īśvaras, or the controllers known as śaktyāveśa-avatāras. Therefore he can be addressed as having the qualities of Lord Viṣṇu.

shri sonic yogi what about this upanishad

do your words apply here also

Om ! May He protect us both together; may He nourish us both together;

May we work conjointly with great energy,

May our study be vigorous and effective;

May we not mutually dispute (or may we not hate any).

Om ! Let there be Peace in me !

Let there be Peace in my environment !

Let there be Peace in the forces that act on me !

Now, at this moment, I take refuge in that Pure State of the Supreme Absolute which can be known by the Vidya, called the Rudra Hridaya Upanishad.

After prostrating before the celebrated form of Sri Mahadeva-Rudra in his heart, adoring the sacred Bhasma and Rudraksha and mentally reciting the great Mahavakya-Mantra, Tarasara, Sri Suka asked his father Sri Vyasa Maharshi, thus:

Who is the real God of gods? In whom are all these existences established? By worshipping whom, can I please the Devas in whole?

Hearing these words, Sri Veda Vyasa replied thus:

Rudra is the embodiment of all Devas. All devas are merely different manifestations of Sri Rudra Himself. On the right side of Rudra, there is the sun, then the four-headed Brahma, and then three Agnis (fires). On the left side, there exist Sri Umadevi, and also Vishnu and Soma (moon). Uma Herself is the form of Vishnu. Vishnu Himself is the form of the moon. Therefore, those who worship Lord Vishnu, worship Siva Himself. And those who worship Siva, worship Lord Vishnu in reality. Those who envy and hate Sri Rudra, are actually hating Sri Vishnu. Those who decry Lord Siva, decry Vishnu Himself. Rudra is the generator of the seed. Vishnu is the embryo of the seed. Siva Himself is Brahma and Brahma Himself is Agni. Rudra is full of Brahma and Vishnu. The whole world is full of Agni and Soma. The masculine gender is Lord Siva. The feminine gender is Sri Bhavani Devi. All the mobile and immobile creation of this universe, is filled up with Uma and Rudra. The Vyakta is Sri Uma, and the Avyakta is Lord Siva. The combination of Uma and Sankara is Vishnu. Hence everybody should prostrate to Sri Maha Vishnu with great devotion. He is the Atman. He is the Paramatman. He is the Antaratman. Brahma is the Antaratman. Siva is the Paramatman. Vishnu is the Eternal Atman of all this universe. This whole creation of Svarga, Martya and Patala Lokas is a big tree. Vishnu is the top portion (branches) of this tree. Brahma is the stem. The root is Lord Siva. The effect is Vishnu. The action is Brahma. The cause is Siva. For the benefit of the worlds. Rudra has taken these three forms. Rudra is Dharma. Vishnu is the world. Brahma is Knowledge. Therefore, do Kirtan of His name, ‘Rudra’, ‘Rudra’. By singing like this, the hallowed name of this great Lord, all your sins will be destroyed. Rudra is man. Uma is woman. Prostrations to Him and Her. Rudra is Brahma. Uma is Sarasvati. Prostrations to Him and Her. Rudra is Vishnu. Uma is Lakshmi. Prostrations to Him and Her. Rudra is Sun. Uma is shadow. Prostrations to Him and Her. Rudra is moon. Uma is star. Prostrations to Him and Her. Rudra is day. Uma is night. Prostrations to Him and Her. Rudra is Yajna. Uma is Vedi. Prostrations to Him and Her. Rudra is Agni, Uma is Svaha. Prostrations to Him and Her. Rudra is Veda. Uma is Sastra. Prostrations to Him and Her. Rudra is tree. Uma is creeper. Prostrations to Him and Her. Rudra is scent. Uma is flower. Prostrations to Him and Her. Rudra is meaning. Uma is word. Prostrations to Him and Her. Rudra is Linga. Uma is Pitha. Prostrations to Him and Her. The devotee should worship Sri Rudra and Uma with these Mantras referred to above. O my son, Suka! With these hymns, you should meditate on the Eternal Para-Brahman, which is beyond the reach of the senses, which is pure Existence, knowledge and Bliss and which cannot be understood either by the speech or by the mind. After knowing this, there is nothing more to be known, because everything is the form of That, and there is nothing separate from That.

There are two Vidyas to be known. They are Para and Apara. Apara Vidya is the embodiment of the four Vedas and their six Angas. They do not deal with the Nature of the Atman. But the Para Vidya is called the Moksha-Sastra. It deals with that supreme philosophy of the Absolute Truth, ununderstandable, impersonal, Nirguna, Nirakara, without ears, without eyes, without hands, without feet, eternal, omnipresent, imperishable, and knowable by the intelligent daring sages.

From that Lord Siva who performs a terrible penance in the form of Supreme Jnana-Marga, this whole world is created which is the food of the mortals. This world is Maya. It seems to appear just like a dream. It is superimposed on the Lord just like a rope on a serpent. This is the eternal Truth. There is no creation in reality. All is absolute. All is Truth. Knowing this, one is liberated at once. Only through Jnana, you can get rid of this Samsara. Only through Jnana, you can understand this existence and never through Karma. Understand this through the guidance of a Brahmanishtha-Srotriya Guru. The Guru will give the disciple all the necessary knowledge of Brahman, the Absolute. By cutting off the bondage of Ajnana or Avidya, one should take refuge in Lord Sadasiva. This is the real wisdom to be understood by an aspirant seeking after Truth. The Pranava is the bow. The Atman is the arrow. The Para-Brahman is the target. Just like the arrow, the Atman will become one with Brahman. But all these three, the bow, the arrow and the target are not different from that Sadasiva. There do not shine the bodies of the sun, moon or the stars. There does not blow the wind, there do not exist many Devatas. He, the One Lord only exists. He only, the Purity of purities, shines for ever and ever.

There are two birds in this body, the Jiva and the Paramatman. The Jiva eats the fruit of his Karmas, but the Paramatman is untouched by anything. The Paramatman is only the Sakshi. He does not do anything. He only assumes the form of the Jiva through His Maya, just as the Akasa inside a pot seems to be different from the Akasa outside and assumes the form of the pot. In reality all is Siva, Advaita, the One Absolute. There is no difference of whatever kind.

When all is understood to be One, Omkara, the Absolute, there is no sorrow, there is no Maya. Then the attainment of the Advaita-Paramananda is very easy. Think that you are the basis of all this universe, you are the One, Kevala, Sat-Chit-Ghana. All people cannot understand this Truth. Those devoid of Maya can know this secret. After knowing this, the Atman does not move towards any place at any time. It becomes one with the Absolute, just like Ghatakasa with Paramakasa. Just as Akasa does not move anywhere, similarly this Atman does not have any movement. It becomes one with OM.

One who knows this great secret Truth is the real Muni. He becomes the Para-Brahman Itself. He becomes Satchidananda. He attains permanent peace.

Om ! May He protect us both together; may He nourish us both together;

May we work conjointly with great energy,

May our study be vigorous and effective;

May we not mutually dispute (or may we not hate any).

Om ! Let there be Peace in me !

Let there be Peace in my environment !

Let there be Peace in the forces that act on me !

Here ends the Rudra-Hridayopanishad belonging to the Krishna-Yajur-Veda.

Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 8.7.22

 

tvam ekaḥ sarva-jagata

īśvaro bandha-mokṣayoḥ

taḿ tvām arcanti kuśalāḥ

prapannārti-haraḿ gurum

 

SYNONYMS

 

tvam ekaḥ — Your Lordship is indeed; sarva-jagataḥ — of the three worlds; īśvaraḥ — the controller; bandha-mokṣayoḥ — of both bondage and liberation; tam — that controller; tvām arcanti — worship you; kuśalāḥ — persons who want good fortune; prapanna-ārti-haram — who can mitigate all the distresses of a sheltered devotee; gurum — you who act as a good advisor to all fallen souls.

 

TRANSLATION

 

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.

 

PURPORT

 

Actually Lord Viṣṇu maintains and accomplishes all good fortune. If one has to take shelter of Lord Viṣṇu, why should the demigods take shelter of Lord Śiva? They did so because Lord Viṣṇu acts through Lord Śiva in the creation of the material world. Lord Śiva acts on behalf of Lord Viṣṇu. When the Lord says in Bhagavad-gītā (14.4) that He is the father of all living entities (ahaḿ bīja-pradaḥ pitā), this refers to actions performed by Lord Viṣṇu through Lord Śiva. Lord Viṣṇu is always unattached to material activities, and when material activities are to be performed, Lord Viṣṇu performs them through Lord Śiva. Lord Śiva is therefore worshiped on the level of Lord Viṣṇu. When Lord Viṣṇu is untouched by the external energy He is Lord Viṣṇu, but when He is in touch with the external energy, He appears in His feature as Lord Śiva.

The Gaudiya Vaishnava Conception of Shiva??????????

Well, let me think. Oh I know, Shiva is Lord Brahma's 6th son [after the 4-Kumaras and Narada] . . . and . . . oh yes, this too:

The Family Tree of all the personalities of the Veda:

There is an actual family tree described in approximately 563 Slokas As found in the Bhagavata-purana***.

These Slokas delineate the family lineages starting with Brahma

[including all the Prajapatis, Manus, the Soma & the Surya Dynasties] up until the 11th Century C.E.. Approximately 2,500 names [including wives are listed]

Avataras and their family lineage is included too—which brings us to the Puranas and before that to the various Vedic Books that re-tell ancient events among the Devas in their youth.

In the Bhagavata-purana the family tree Starts with & proceeds as follows:

1) Brahma's Birth [155 Trillion B.C.] — Brahma's children — Brahma's Daughter-in-law & Son-in-laws — Brahma's grandchildren — Brahma's great-grandchildren

2) Brahma's first 50 years of his life have already passed —

3) Brahma's awakes afresh at the start of the Present Day (kalpa) — the first Manu (svayambhuva) is born — Kasyapa & his cousins re-populate the Universe (prajapatis)

4) The first to 6<SUP>th</SUP> Manus born, live and pass.

5) The 7<SUP>th</SUP> Manu is born.

3) At the end of the 1<SUP>st</SUP> Maha-yuga of the 7<SUP>th</SUP> Manu— Mother Revati leaves to seek Husband (and 27 Maha-yuga later arrives to marry Balarama).

4) We are here now in the 28th Maha-yuga epoch [out of 71] of the present 7<SUP>th</SUP> Manu.

5) The family tree continues until the 11<SUP>th</SUP> Century CE.

The reason for various seemingly contradictory statements in the Vedas,

and also,

in seemingly contradictory statements in the Puranas about pastimes of persons mentioned in different puranas etc is:

The events happened in vastly different epochs and vastly different places —attended by a few most famous personalities and also attended by mutitudes of Sadhus, rishis and celestial near-do-wells —therefore the re-counting of Vedic events of antiquity contain points-of-view from sources that witnessed the same events from different vantage points.

Also, the Demigods are prone to mistakes, bad-manners, momentary lapses of judgment, lust pursuits etc —so eventhough their behavior is exemplary it contains all the variety of Celestial Soap-Operas [novellas] that spring from the Human-condition [Demigod-condition].

Remember, Daksha, Durvasa and what to speak of Big-Big Asuras who made mistakes when they could have enjoyed the good life into their dotage years.

Why would Indra not recognize the advent of Vishnu's original-form incarnate ['Bala-Krishna-Kana']?

Because of supreme conceit. But the Devas are not self-hating soul killers —they live a polished life of opulence with their duties to perform for the good of all sentient beings and also for the maintenance of the physical structure of the cosmos.

Getting oriented,

Bhaktajan

***Five thousand years ago Vyasadeva put the Vedas in writing for the people in this age, Kali-yuga.

He divided the Vedas into four: Rig, Sama, Atharva and Yajur.

Then he gave the charge of these Vedas to his different disciples.

After compiling the Vedas, Vyasadeva set forth their essence in the aphorisms known as Vedanta-sutras.

Vyasadeva summarized all Vedic knowledge for scholars and philosophers in what is called the Vedanta-sutra. This is the last word of the Vedas.

Yet . . . later . . . Vyasadeva was not very satisfied even after compiling many Puranas and Upanisads, and even after writing the Vedanta-sutra.

Then his spiritual master, Narada, instructed him, “Explain the Vedanta-sutra.” Vedanta means “ultimate knowledge,” and the ultimate knowledge is Krsna.

The Vedanta-sutra simply hints at what is Brahman, the Absolute Truth:

“The Absolute Truth is that from whom everything emanates.”

This is a summary, but it is explained in detail in Srimad-Bhagavatam. If everything is emanating from the Absolute Truth, then what is the nature of the Absolute Truth? That is explained in Srimad-Bhagavatam.

The Absolute Truth must be consciousness. He is self-effulgent (svarat).

We develop our consciousness and knowledge by receiving knowledge from others, but for Him it is said that He is self-effulgent.

The whole summary of Vedic knowledge is the Vedanta-sutra, and the Vedanta-sutra is explained by the writer himself in Srimad-Bhagavatam.

; deva-deva — O Lord Mahādeva, best of the demigods; mahā-deva — O great demigod

The term "demigod" is wrong here. Srila Prabhupada selectively translated the word "deva" (root of the English word "divine") as "demigod" when it referred to anyone except Krishna. However, there are three places at least in the Bhagavad-Gita (11:38, 11:44 and 11:45) where the word "deva" (or Adideva in 11:38) is used to address Lord Krishna. Srila Prabhupada doesn't translate "deva" as "demigod" here, as it doesn't fit his theology. He instead translates it as "Lord".

A demigod is the offspring of a human and a God. Greek heroes Perseus and Hercules were demigods, as while they both had mortal mothers, their father was the God Zeus. Lord Shiva and none of the Hindu devas fall into this category. The only real "demigods" mentioned in the Hindu scriptures are the five Pandava brothers, who were born from relationships between gods (Indra, Yama, Vayu and the Aswins) and Kunti and Madri (humans).

Please do not call Lord Shiva a "demigod". It is very insulting.

shri sonic yogi what about this upanishad

do your words apply here also

 

 

Rudra-Hridaya Upanishad

 

 

That is a Shaiva Upanisad and it is not a principal Upanisad that even Sankaracarya commented on.

Shankar acknowledged 10 principle Upanisads for the basis of his Advaita Vedanta.

1. Aitareya (ṚV)

2. Bṛhadāraṇyaka (ŚYV)

3. Taittirīya (KYV)

4. Chāndogya (SV)

5. Kena (SV)

6. Īṣa (ŚYV)

7. Śvetāśvatara(KYV)

8. Kaṭha (KYV)

9. Muṇḍaka (AV)

10. Māṇḍūkya (AV)

11. Praśna (AV)

As such, the Upanisad that you have quoted is not a mukhya Upanisad that Shankar commented on in formulating his Advaita doctrine.

Different Upanisads were meant for different classes of people.

For those who could not follow the Mukhya Upanisads, there are are the Shaiva Upanisads.

In the Muktika Upanishad's list of 108 Upanishads the first 10 are grouped as mukhya "principal". 21 are grouped as Sāmānya Vedānta "common Vedanta", 23 as Sannyāsa, 9 as Shākta, 13 as Vaishnava, 14 as Shaiva and 17 as Yoga Upanishads.

There are Upanisads specifically meant for those souls who cannot adopt the sattvic Vishnu worship. For them, there are the Shaiva oriented Upanisads aimed at developing their worship of Siva.

Shankar knew he could not establish his Advaita siddhanta on the basis of Shaiva Upanisads, so he commented only on the Mukhya Upanisads listed above.

A demigod is the offspring of a human and a God. Greek heroes Perseus and Hercules were demigods, as while they both had mortal mothers, their father was the God Zeus. Lord Shiva and none of the Hindu devas fall into this category. The only real "demigods" mentioned in the Hindu scriptures are the five Pandava brothers, who were born from relationships between gods (Indra, Yama, Vayu and the Aswins) and Kunti and Madri (humans

no you can become indra and 33 crore devas taht is why they are demigods.Prabhupadas translation was different from greek one.

That is a Shaiva Upanisad and it is not a principal Upanisad that even Sankaracarya commented on.

 

Shankar acknowledged 10 principle Upanisads for the basis of his Advaita Vedanta.

 

1. Aitareya (ṚV)

2. Bṛhadāraṇyaka (ŚYV)

3. Taittirīya (KYV)

4. Chāndogya (SV)

5. Kena (SV)

6. Īṣa (ŚYV)

7. Śvetāśvatara(KYV)

8. Kaṭha (KYV)

9. Muṇḍaka (AV)

10. Māṇḍūkya (AV)

11. Praśna (AV)

 

As such, the Upanisad that you have quoted is not a mukhya Upanisad that Shankar commented on in formulating his Advaita doctrine.

 

Different Upanisads were meant for different classes of people.

For those who could not follow the Mukhya Upanisads, there are are the Shaiva Upanisads.

 

In the Muktika Upanishad's list of 108 Upanishads the first 10 are grouped as mukhya "principal". 21 are grouped as Sāmānya Vedānta "common Vedanta", 23 as Sannyāsa, 9 as Shākta, 13 as Vaishnava, 14 as Shaiva and 17 as Yoga Upanishads.

 

There are Upanisads specifically meant for those souls who cannot adopt the sattvic Vishnu worship. For them, there are the Shaiva oriented Upanisads aimed at developing their worship of Siva.

 

Shankar knew he could not establish his

yes sorrry i got it. i wanted to confirm on this upanishad.

I think your 8.7.21 post applies here also.

In my opinion and also as I have received instruction on the same topic:

1] The Vedas are as in-decipherable as the Egyptian & Mayan Hyrogliphics.

and

2] For those that consider Vyasa's conclusion different from what the is the bonefide Gaudiya Vaishnava Conception: Ask your self when you are reading your copy of the "Vedas":

'Who is the 3rd person speaker/narrator?

Who is wanting/having the intension that these ancient dialogues & pastimes & stories to be recorded in the Vedas?

Who was thjere that remembered all the original narrations that are therein re-told & recorded as part of the Vedas?

Who is the person in the Vedas that says who is & who is not Godhead?'

Thank you sant for the two Charts.

here's another one:

The term "demigod" is wrong here. Srila Prabhupada selectively translated the word "deva" (root of the English word "divine") as "demigod" when it referred to anyone except Krishna. However, there are three places at least in the Bhagavad-Gita (11:38, 11:44 and 11:45) where the word "deva" (or Adideva in 11:38) is used to address Lord Krishna. Srila Prabhupada doesn't translate "deva" as "demigod" here, as it doesn't fit his theology. He instead translates it as "Lord".

 

A demigod is the offspring of a human and a God. Greek heroes Perseus and Hercules were demigods, as while they both had mortal mothers, their father was the God Zeus. Lord Shiva and none of the Hindu devas fall into this category. The only real "demigods" mentioned in the Hindu scriptures are the five Pandava brothers, who were born from relationships between gods (Indra, Yama, Vayu and the Aswins) and Kunti and Madri (humans).

 

Please do not call Lord Shiva a "demigod". It is very insulting.

<table cellspacing="3"><tbody><tr><td align="right" valign="top">1</td> <td valign="top"> deva</td> <td valign="top">mf(%{i})n. (fr. 3. %{div}) heavenly , divine (also said of terrestrial things of high excellence) RV. AV. VS. S3Br. (superl. m. %{deva4-tama} RV. iv , 22 , 3 &c. ; f. %{devi-tamA} , ii , 41 , 16) ; m. (according to Pa1n2. 3-3 , 120 %{de4va}) a deity , god RV. &c.&c. ; (rarely applied to) evil demons AV. iii , 15 , 5 TS. iii , 5 , 4 , 1 ; (pl. the gods as the heavenly or shining ones ; %{vi4zve@devA4s} , all the gods RV. ii , 3 , 4 &c. , or a partic. class of deities [see under %{vi4zva}] , often reckoned as 33 , either 11 for each of the 3 worlds RV. i , 139 , 11 &c. [cf. %{tri-daza}] , or 8 Vasus , 11 Rudras , and 12 A1dityas [to which the 2 As3vins must be added] Br. ; cf. also DivyA7v. 68 ; with Jainas 4 classes , viz. %{bhavanA7dhI7za} , %{vyantara} , %{jyotiSka} , and %{vaimAnika} ; %{devA4nAm@pa4tnyas} , the wives of the gods RV. VS. Br. [cf. %{deva-patnI} below]) [492,3] ; N. of the number 33 (see above) Gan2it. ; N. of Indra as the god of the sky and giver of rain MBh. R. &c. ; a cloud L. ; (with Jainas) the 22nd Arhat of the future Ut-sarpin2i1 ; the image of a god , an idol Vishn2. ; a god on earth or among men , either Bra1hman , priest RV. AV. (cf. %{bhU-d-}) , or king , prince (as a title of honour , esp. in the voc. `" your majesty "' or `" your honour "' ; also ifc. e.g. %{zrI-harSa-d-} , %{vikramA7Gka-d-} , king S3ri1-hñharsha or VikrñVikrama7n3ka , and in names as %{puruSo7ttama-d-} [lit. having Vishn2u as one's deity ; cf. %{atithi-d-} , %{AcArya-d-} , %{pitR-d-} , %{mAtR-d-}] ; rarely preceding the name e.g. %{deva-caNDamahAsena} Katha1s. xiii , 48) Ka1v. Pan5c. &c. (cf. %{kSiti-} , %{nara-} , &c.) ; a husband's brother (cf. %{devR} and %{devara}) W. ; a fool , dolt L. ; a child L. ; a man following any partic. line or business L. ; a spearman , lancer L. ; emulation , wish to excel or overcome L. ; sport , play L. ; a sword Gal. ; N. of men VP. ; of a disciple of Na1ga7rjuna MWB. 192 ; dimin. for %{devadatta} Pa1n2. 5-3 , 83 Va1rtt.4 Sch. ; (n. L.) an organ of sense Mun2d2Up. iii , 1 , 8 ; 2 , 7 ; (%{A}) f. Hibiscus Mutabilis or Marsilia Quadrifolia ; (%{I4}) , f. see s.v. [Cf. Lat. {di1vus} , {deus} ; Lit. {de14vas} ; Old Pruss. {deiwas}.]</td></tr></tbody></table>

Srila Prabhupada substituted "demigods" for "gods" because Gaudiya Vaishnavism is not pantheism and the term "gods" has always been associated with pantheism.

It was a very wise semantic device that helps to distinguish The Gaudiya monotheism from the largely polytheism that Hinduism is mainly known for in the western world and even in Asia.

Srila Prabhupada's use of the term "demigod" was a very ingenius adaptation that demonstrates the Gaudiya Vaishnava monotheistim and separates it from the polytheistic Hindusim.

There is only ONE God in Gaudiya Vaishnavism, hence Srila Prabhupada translates "deva" as demigods so as to try and prevent any misunderstanding that there are many gods and not ONE supreme God.

Thank you sant for the two Charts

is it valid from vasihnava view .

there are more its from this -

http://www.aboutkrishna.com/....

Ahhh, thank you for your most excellent & erudite statement --(I shall remember it & use it for myself):

"I do not accept advice on sadhana as a substitute for an explanation on siddhanta." --Raghu post #3

Ahhh, thank you for your most excellent & erudite statement(s) --(I shall remember it & use it for myself):

"Srila Prabhupada substituted "demigods" for "gods" because Gaudiya Vaishnavism is not pantheism and the term "gods" has always been associated with pantheism."

"It was a very wise semantic device that helps to distinguish The Gaudiya monotheism from the largely polytheism that Hinduism is mainly known for in the western world and even in Asia."

"Srila Prabhupada's use of the term "demigod" was a very ingenius adaptation that demonstrates the Gaudiya Vaishnava monotheistim and separates it from the polytheistic Hindusim."

"There is only ONE God in Gaudiya Vaishnavism, hence Srila Prabhupada translates "deva" as demigods so as to try and prevent any misunderstanding that there are many gods and not ONE supreme God.<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->" --Sonic Yogi post #22

Ahhh, thank you for your most excellent & erudite statement(s) --(I shall remember it & use it for myself):

 

"Srila Prabhupada substituted "demigods" for "gods" because Gaudiya Vaishnavism is not pantheism and the term "gods" has always been associated with pantheism."

 

"It was a very wise semantic device that helps to distinguish The Gaudiya monotheism from the largely polytheism that Hinduism is mainly known for in the western world and even in Asia."

 

"Srila Prabhupada's use of the term "demigod" was a very ingenius adaptation that demonstrates the Gaudiya Vaishnava monotheistim and separates it from the polytheistic Hindusim."

"There is only ONE God in Gaudiya Vaishnavism, hence Srila Prabhupada translates "deva" as demigods so as to try and prevent any misunderstanding that there are many gods and not ONE supreme God.<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->" --Sonic Yogi post #22

 

yes i also like this a lot.Words to express something relating to my views also.thanks

"I do not accept advice on sadhana as a substitute for an explanation on siddhanta." --Raghu

another good one