on Shiva Incarnations

[Guest guest]

To add on to this discussion I have another point too The "Shiva rahasya", which

speaks about the shaivam and its followers speaks also about AdiShankara, where

The Eternal Father speaks about the fact that a child will be born with his

amsha. He also mentions the place. And Shicva rahasya is a Itihaas and not

purana. There are chances to believe. But another amazing fact is that In

BagavatGita when Krishna reveals to Arjuna his Eternal form, the Vishwaroopa, he

saya "Roopam Ishvaram" the Ishvara roopa. So lord Shiva is Disguise of Krishna.

But still chances to belive, when he gave teh world the Bhagavat Gita, which

speaks about Gnana.

Subramaniam Sankaran

 

But still the doubt prevails.

 

 

On Mon, 10 Dec 2001 miinalochanii wrote :

> , "sgesh" <sgesh> wrote:

> > Dear Sri Subramaniam Sankaran,

> > Nice article on paDavETTamman. But please note that

> our

> scriptures

> > tell us a fact that Lord Shiva does not have any

> incarnations. For

> > example refer to the Thevaram "piRappilliyaip

> pinyagap piththanai".

> > There are many such references to this concept in

> ThirumuRai. This

> is

> > not only held by devotees of Lord Shiva. You can also

> find the same

> > reflected in saint aruNagirinAthar's anubhUdhi

> as"udhiyA mariyA

> uNarA

> > maRavA vidhi mAl aRiyA vimalan". It is even held at

> the Jain

> > literature silappahikAram as "piRavA yAkkaip periyOn".

> >

>

> namaste Ganesh

>

> I welcome you to . I am great fan of your

> website on shaivam.

>

> I understand and empathize with your view point.

> According to Saiva

> sidhhanta Lord does not incarnate or take birth

> through the womb of

> any being. In the entire thiruviLaiyaaDal puraaNa, Lord

> takes form

> that is necessary at will and vanishes at will. As the

> birth through

> the womb of a being is considered inferior. Even Sri

> Meenaxi does not

> take birth through the womb of kaanchana maala, but

> appears as a

> three-year old girl from the sacrifical fire (so it is

> with umA).

> That is why SHE is called ayonijA.

>

> I should add, however, smArta sampradAya and

> advaita-vedAnta does no

> think that way. For instance, bhagavaan shankaraacharya

> (in all dig-

> vijaya-s) is considered as an amsham of Lord. And His

> ashhTottaram

> hails him as saaxaat shankara ruupa bhR^it (I have the

> entire

> ashhTottaram with meaning on

> www.geocities.com/ambaal_daasan/guru/shankara.html

>

> Why I say he is an amsham because, he goes to kailaasha

> and meets the

> Lord.

>

> kAnchi paramaacharya as gives a reference in shrii

> rudram which

> points to sankaraacharya and it could not be explained

> otherwise.

>

> This matter of difference in opinion could be clearly

> settled only if

> an authorative proof from shruti is given that Lord

> does not

> incarnate through womb of a being.

>

> Having said all this, for many many years, I was

> holding/believing in

> the view what you said. That is Lord Shiva does not

> take birth

> through womb of a being. To be honest, I like that

> view, however,

> the opinion of kAnchi paramAcharya certainly made me

> reverse that to

> accept shankara as incarnation of Lord shiva.

>

>

> Please do correct me.

>

> AUM shivaabhyaannamaH

>

> Ravi

>

> shivanODu okkum deivam theDinum illai

> avanODu oppar ingu yaavarum illai

> thirumantiram

>

> (there is no deity that is comparable to Lord shiva

> even if you

> search every where, there is none who is equal to him)

------------------------ Sponsor

> ---------------------~-->

> Quit now for Great

> American Smokeout

> http://us.click./0vN8tD/9pSDAA/ySSFAA/XUWolB/TM

> ------------------------

> -------------~->

>

> AUM shrImAtre namaH

> AUM namaH shivAya

> AUM namaH shivAbhyAm

>

> Archives : http://www.ambaa.org/ (Edited)

> : /messages//

>

> Contact : help

>

> Your use of is subject to

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

, "Subramaniam Sankaran" <subbu0306@r...> wrote:

>

> To add on to this discussion I have another point too The "Shiva

>rahasya", which speaks about the shaivam and its followers speaks

>also about AdiShankara, where The Eternal Father speaks about the

>fact that a child will be born with his amsha. He also mentions the

>place. And Shicva rahasya is a Itihaas and not purana. There are

>chances to believe. But another amazing fact is that In BagavatGita

>when Krishna reveals to Arjuna his Eternal form, the Vishwaroopa, he

>saya "Roopam Ishvaram" the Ishvara roopa. So lord Shiva is Disguise

>of Krishna. But still chances to belive, when he gave teh world the

>Bhagavat Gita, which speaks about Gnana.

 

The Koti Rudra Samhita (or Sata Rudra Samhita?) of Shiva Purana

lists in detail numerous avataras of Shiva. Some of them appear at

will and then disappear as Ravi mentioned, like for ex: KirAteshvara-

Vana Durga Avatara, while some of them are Amshams of

Shiva/Parameshvara like Hanuma etc. But there is no avatara such as

Purnavatara, akin to Lord Krishna being considered complete avatara

of MahaViShNu.

 

Please correct any wrong info.

 

As for Shankaracharya being considered an avatara of

Shiva/Parameshvara, the following incident in Sringeri Mutt may be of

interest:

 

"One Subba Narasimha Bhatt was appointed to do puja in the shrine of

Adi Sankara in the Mutt complex at Sringeri. Jagadguru Sri

Chandrasekhara Bharati Who came to that shrine looked at the new

archaka, then turned to Narahari Bhatt who was accompanying His

Holiness and asked him to initiate the archaka into Sri Dakshinamurti

mantra before he was allowed to perform puja to Sri Sankara.

 

Only then did the others become aware of the fact that Subba

Narasimha Bhatt did not have that mantropadesa, which was necessary

for one to do puja to Sri Sankara. The Jagadguru thus rectified the

mistake committed by the Mutt officials in His own benevolent way."

>From www.jagadgurus.org

 

regards

 

> Subramaniam Sankaran

>

>

>

> On Mon, 10 Dec 2001 miinalochanii wrote :

> > , "sgesh" <sgesh> wrote:

> > > Dear Sri Subramaniam Sankaran,

> > > Nice article on paDavETTamman. But please note that

> > our

> > scriptures

> > > tell us a fact that Lord Shiva does not have any

> > incarnations. For

> > > example refer to the Thevaram "piRappilliyaip

> > pinyagap piththanai".

> > > There are many such references to this concept in

> > ThirumuRai. This

> > is

> > > not only held by devotees of Lord Shiva. You can also

> > find the same

> > > reflected in saint aruNagirinAthar's anubhUdhi

> > as"udhiyA mariyA

> > uNarA

> > > maRavA vidhi mAl aRiyA vimalan". It is even held at

> > the Jain

> > > literature silappahikAram as "piRavA yAkkaip periyOn".

> > >

> >

> > namaste Ganesh

> >

> > I welcome you to . I am great fan of your

> > website on shaivam.

> >

> > I understand and empathize with your view point.

> > According to Saiva

> > sidhhanta Lord does not incarnate or take birth

> > through the womb of

> > any being. In the entire thiruviLaiyaaDal puraaNa, Lord

> > takes form

> > that is necessary at will and vanishes at will. As the

> > birth through

> > the womb of a being is considered inferior. Even Sri

> > Meenaxi does not

> > take birth through the womb of kaanchana maala, but

> > appears as a

> > three-year old girl from the sacrifical fire (so it is

> > with umA).

> > That is why SHE is called ayonijA.

> >

> > I should add, however, smArta sampradAya and

> > advaita-vedAnta does no

> > think that way. For instance, bhagavaan shankaraacharya

> > (in all dig-

> > vijaya-s) is considered as an amsham of Lord. And His

> > ashhTottaram

> > hails him as saaxaat shankara ruupa bhR^it (I have the

> > entire

> > ashhTottaram with meaning on

> > www.geocities.com/ambaal_daasan/guru/shankara.html

> >

> > Why I say he is an amsham because, he goes to kailaasha

> > and meets the

> > Lord.

> >

> > kAnchi paramaacharya as gives a reference in shrii

> > rudram which

> > points to sankaraacharya and it could not be explained

> > otherwise.

> >

> > This matter of difference in opinion could be clearly

> > settled only if

> > an authorative proof from shruti is given that Lord

> > does not

> > incarnate through womb of a being.

> >

> > Having said all this, for many many years, I was

> > holding/believing in

> > the view what you said. That is Lord Shiva does not

> > take birth

> > through womb of a being. To be honest, I like that

> > view, however,

> > the opinion of kAnchi paramAcharya certainly made me

> > reverse that to

> > accept shankara as incarnation of Lord shiva.

> >

> >

> > Please do correct me.

> >

> > AUM shivaabhyaannamaH

> >

> > Ravi

> >

> > shivanODu okkum deivam theDinum illai

> > avanODu oppar ingu yaavarum illai

> > thirumantiram

> >

> > (there is no deity that is comparable to Lord shiva

> > even if you

> > search every where, there is none who is equal to him)

[Guest guest]

Dear All,

Thank you all in following up this topic in a very informative

way. As I could not catch up with the mails there is a delay in

response. I have collected here some of the core points raised under

multiple threads on this topic and responding to it.

 

(Pls also visit http://www.shaivism.org/tht10.html for a related

thoughts article)

 

, "miinalochanii" <miinalochanii> wrote:

.....

>kAnchi paramaacharya as gives a reference in shrii rudram which

>points to sankaraacharya and it could not be explained otherwise.

>To be honest, I like that view, however,

>the opinion of kAnchi paramAcharya certainly made me reverse that to

>accept shankara as incarnation of Lord shiva.

 

.....

 

In fact when I wrote the line "I have seen many such statements

offlate, including from many respectable people. " I was exactly

refering to sri chandrashekarendra saraswati of the Kanchi mutt (and

some more of the bagavatpAda lineage of saints). To be specific the

point you are referring to in the "rudra samhita" is "namaH kapardine

cha vyptakeshAya cha". The direct translation gives "salutations to

the long haired and the shaved headed". The interpretation given is

that "the shaved headed refers to bagavad pAda as he is a saint with

shaved head. Lord Shiva has matted hair, so how else do we explain

that He is shaved headed ?" If we apply the same logic the same

rudram also hails, "namo vanychate parivanychate" that

means, "salutations to One with vengence and Revenging". So to

explain that do we have to consider somebody revengeful as the

incarnation of Lord Shiva ? No, it cannot be. It is a very well known

fact (acknowledged by shankara lineage including sri paramAcharya

too) that the sata rudrIyam hails the Universal form of the Supreme.

It hails, "Salutations to the one in wet wood, dry wood, well, lake,

trees" and so on. We certainly cannot be searching for so many

incarnations, other than hailing the Lord as "vishveshvara" (the Lord

of the whole world).

 

To my little knowledge of vedas, there are no predictions (like those

given in some parts of purANas) are given. When the vedas are silent

about the much respected avatars of Rama and Krishna, why should they

just talk about bagavad pAda. So the sri rudram statement will not

stand as a testimony that shankara is an incarnation of God.

 

Since we are talking about quite respected seer sri paramAchArya, it

would be appropriate to look at the statement of the Adi guru of that

lineage, shankara bagavadpAda itself. In one of the beautiful verses

of shivAnanda lahari he mentions, "While blessing me don't give me

the position of brahma or viShNu. If you give so I may have to get

tired in search of you taking the form of bird and animal (swan and

pig). Give me the devotion to Your feet." This hymn where he outpours

his great bhakti would be grossly inappropriate if he is the

incarnation of the Lord Himself. (There could be multiple such

references possible from the words of bagavadpAda).

 

, "Subramaniam Sankaran" <subbu0306@r...> wrote:

>To add on to this discussion I have another point too The "Shiva

rahasya",

>which speaks about the shaivam and its followers speaks also about

AdiShankara,

>where The Eternal Father speaks about the fact that a child will be

born with

>his amsha.

 

.....

>But another amazing fact is that In

>BagavatGita when Krishna reveals to Arjuna his Eternal form, the

Vishwaroopa,

>he saya "Roopam Ishvaram" the Ishvara roopa. So lord Shiva is

Disguise of

>Krishna.

 

 

With reference to the first point, well if we are talking about an

amsha of God I dont think there needs to be asecond opinion on that.

Shaivism very much holds that (in fact one of its speciality) the

devotees get the amsha or even form or even name itself of the God.

For example look at "chaNDIsha", he is having like the Lord axe,

deer, crescent crown, three eyes and so on. Same way by the

names "gaNesh, chaNDisha, nandi, Ishana" we think of various

gods, but it could be established that these are the names of the God

and the respective (respectable) divines got these names from the

Lord. You can list a big number of such cases in both these. This is

called the "sArUpya mukti". One could also site a reference from

rAmAyaNa where Sri Rama, worships to get "rudrAmsha" in him before

the war with rAvaNa begins. We could even refer to the shivAnanda

lahari of bagavad pAda much talked about in this thread, where

he refers to the four stages of liberation (sAlokya, sAmipya, sArUpya

and sAyujya). So amsha (part of the form/characteristics) is not the

question at all, as even the much ahead sArUpya itself is a well

supported concept, specially in Shaivam.

 

Well, the second point I feel is much to do with the emaning of

Ishvara than the Ishvara Himself. Anyway even if we take for the sake

of argument that it refers to Ishvara, it is a well given the

philosophy that viShNu is in all things. The word viShNu means

omnipresent. It is for this reason viShNu sahasranamam refers

as "vishvamUrti" where as the Lord Shiva is being hailed

as "vishveshvaramUrti".

 

, "satisharigela" <satisharigela> wrote:

>The Koti Rudra Samhita (or Sata Rudra Samhita?) of Shiva Purana

>lists in detail numerous avataras of Shiva. Some of them appear at

>will and then disappear as Ravi mentioned, like for ex: KirAteshvara

 

....

>while some of them are Amshams of Shiva/Parameshvara like Hanuma etc

 

.....

 

On the first point, (The place where the kirAta and other mUrtis are

described are in the skandha purANa) a small correction. It says

mUrtis and not avatars. That refers to these mUrtis as 25, 64 and

much more. In Shaivism the Supreme which is beyond Form, gender etc

is called parashiva which is very difficult to comprehend. Due to Its

grace on pashus, it took the form of Flame (which we worship as shiva

lingam), which is neither form nor formless. This is called

sadAshiva. Even further to bless the devotees on various occasions It

took the forms (like the much adorable ardanArIshvara - in this

context refer to appar thEvAram "virikadhir nyAyiRallar") which are

called mAheshvara mUrthams. (For information on the same please refer

to http://www.shaivism.org/maahesh.html") These are not avatars but

are forms like what Sri Ravi mentioned.

 

There has been quite some confusion about amsha and avatAr again in

the case of Hanuman. The discussion on the first point of Sri Sankaran

will hold good for this too. (We all know the worship Hanuman did to

get the shiva linagam for Rama to worship at rAmeshvaram).

 

 

 

Well this discussion has been long, but one thing is very easily

inferable. We Hindus have got to the syndrome of asssigning avatArs

to most of the great people we encounter. Look at todays state where

so many swAmijis are being claimed by avatAr of one or the other !!

In this case I like the concept of Islam (Though it is not something

that is not there in our religion, we just missed the thread

somewhere in the middle) that only God is worshippable and any body

including Mohammad can only be respected and not worshipped. There

were good enough reason for us Hindus to consider the gurus as gods

(guru sAxAt parabrahma), because they are our interface which makes

us to link to the Supreme. When we say somebody who helped us in

need, "You came like God" why not the gurus be seen as though they

are gods ! But the problem we are over applying things. When we tell

the one who helped as you are the god, one doesn't really mean it.

But in case of gurus we seem to have lost that point !!

 

Thank you all.

 

namaH shivAya

 

with love,

Ganesh

---

Visit Shaivism Home Page at http://www.shaivam.org

---

[Guest guest]

shrIH

> , "miinalochanii" <miinalochanii> wrote:

> ....

>

> >kAnchi paramaacharya as gives a reference in shrii rudram which

> >points to sankaraacharya and it could not be explained otherwise.

>

> >To be honest, I like that view, however,

> >the opinion of kAnchi paramAcharya certainly made me reverse that

to

> >accept shankara as incarnation of Lord shiva.

>

> ....

>

> In fact when I wrote the line "I have seen many such statements

> offlate, including from many respectable people. " I was exactly

> refering to sri chandrashekarendra saraswati of the Kanchi mutt

(and

> some more of the bagavatpAda lineage of saints). To be specific the

> point you are referring to in the "rudra samhita" is "namaH

kapardine

> cha vyptakeshAya cha". The direct translation gives "salutations to

> the long haired and the shaved headed". The interpretation given is

> that "the shaved headed refers to bagavad pAda as he is a saint

with

> shaved head. Lord Shiva has matted hair, so how else do we explain

> that He is shaved headed ?" If we apply the same logic the same

> rudram also hails, "namo vanychate parivanychate" that

> means, "salutations to One with vengence and Revenging". So to

> explain that do we have to consider somebody revengeful as the

> incarnation of Lord Shiva ?

 

 

The Shiva Purana mentions Aswatthama as having Rudra Amsha.

 

> , "satisharigela" <satisharigela> wrote:

> >The Koti Rudra Samhita (or Sata Rudra Samhita?) of Shiva Purana

> >lists in detail numerous avataras of Shiva. Some of them appear at

> >will and then disappear as Ravi mentioned, like for ex:

>>KirAteshvara

 

> On the first point, (The place where the kirAta and other mUrtis

are

> described are in the skandha purANa) a small correction. It says

> mUrtis and not avatars. That refers to these mUrtis as 25, 64 and

> much more.

 

 

 

The Shiva Purana also mentions this KirAteshvara incident as an

avatara and so does the Mahabharata.