Is Lord Shiva a demigod?

[Guest guest]

10.0pt">Haribol Devotees,

10.0pt">

10.0pt">Please accept my most humble obeisances.

10.0pt">

10.0pt">I have some questions regarding Lord Shiva?

10.0pt">

1) Is

Lord Shiva a demigod? Many places SP mentioned in BG that Lord Shiva is a

demigod like Brahma. Many places in Vedas it is said that Shiva and Vishnu are

non different (Shivaya Vishnua rupaya Shiva rupaya Vishnave). Also Brahma

samhita gives different explanation.

2) In

one of the Upanishads it is mentioned that Brahma created Lord Shiva. Again my

source is SP’s BG purport. I’m more confused.

3) Is

Lord Shiva’s planet eternal? If so, those go there should not return to

material pool again? Am I correct?

4) If

Shiva is greatest Vaishnava, why Gaudiya Vaishnavas are not giving enough

respect to Lord Shiva. I have never seen any picture of Lord Shiva in any of

the ISKCON temples in INDIA.

Also Lord Shiva’s appearance day (Maha Shivaratri) is never celebrated

anywhere. Moreover I have n’t herad the glorification of Lord Shiva from

Gaudiya Vaishna Acharyas. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

5) Most

Surprising thing is different devotees of ISKCON are having different opinions

about Lord Shiva. Every time I pose this question to some Maharaj/senior devotee,

I’m getting a new answer. Is Gaudiya Vaishnava philosophy has a clear cut

definition for Lord Shiva- If so why different people are giving different explanations?

10.0pt">

10.0pt">Any discussion with verses from bonafide scriptures and vaishna

literature is highly appreciated.

10.0pt">

10.0pt">My aim is not to offend anybody. Answers like “it does not matter”

or “It is very complex subject” are not expected.

10.0pt">

10.0pt">Dasanudasa

10.0pt">Madhava

[Guest guest]

I recommend that, as per Madhava's request, and given the

inconsistency of answers he has received to date, that any and all

answers be accompanied by shaastric pramaanas as much as possible.

 

- K

[Guest guest]

>

> Any discussion with verses from bonafide scriptures and vaishna

literature

> is highly appreciated.

>

>

>

> My aim is not to offend anybody. Answers like "it does not matter"

or "It is

> very complex subject" are not expected.

>

>

>

> Dasanudasa

>

> Madhava

 

Hare Krishna Madhava prabhuji

 

"There is no scripture equal to the Brahma-samhita as far as the

final spiritual conclusion is concerned,". "Indeed, that scripture is

the supreme revelation of the glories of Lord Govinda, for it reveals

the topmost knowledge about Him. Since all conclusions are briefly

presented in Brahma-samhita, it is essential among all the Vaisnava

literatures." (Madhya-lila 9.239-240)

 

Location of Lord Shivas abode:

Since it is beyond mundane world it is not subject to destruction.

And remember Lord Krishna is destroyer through "His"[Krishnas] form

of Lord Shiva only.

 

TEXT 43

Lowest of all is located Devi-dhama [mundane world], next above it is

Mahesa-dhama [abode of Mahesa]; above Mahesa-dhama is placed Hari-

dhama [abode of Hari] and above them all is located Krsna's own realm

named Goloka. I adore the primeval Lord Govinda, who has allotted

their respective authorities to the rulers of those graded realms.

 

Puport:

Brahma looking up to the higher position of Goloka is speaking of the

other realms from the point of view of his own realm: the first in

order is this mundane world called Devi-dhama consisting of the

fourteen worlds, viz., Satyaloka, etc.; next above Devi-dhama is

located Siva-dhama one portion of which, called Mahakala-dhama, is

enveloped in darkness; interpenetrating this portion of Siva-dhama

there shines the Sadasivaloka, full of great light. Above the same

appears Hari-dhama or the transcendental Vaikunthaloka

 

 

Nature of Lord Shiva, whether he is Krishna or demigod ?

Note: The text appearing between >>>> and <<<< is my comment.

 

TEXT 45

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, so I adore the primeval Lord Govinda of whom the state of

Sambhu is a transformation for the performance of the work of

destruction.

 

Purport:

(The real nature of Sambhu, the presiding deity of Mahesa-dhama, is

described.) Sambhu is not a second Godhead other than Krsna. Those,

who entertain such discriminating sentiment, commit a great offense

against the Supreme Lord. The supremacy of Sambhu is subservient to

that of Govinda; hence they are not really different from each other.

The nondistinction is established by the fact that just as milk

treated with acid turns into curd so Godhead becomes a subservient

when He Himself attains a distinct personality by the addition of a

particular element of adulteration.

 

>>>> Note Godhead[Vishnu] becomes His own subservient. How does that

happens --- by addition of a particular element of

adulteration.Vishnu accepts this adulterated element why for the

purpose of destruction of universe as mentioned in the verse. <<<<

 

This personality has no independent initiative.

 

>>>> No independent initiative means He is not second absolute

principle, first being Vishnu/Krishna. And why he is not second

absolute principle because he is actually Krishna[first and only

absolute principle] transformed into His[Krishna] subservient by

addition of particular element of adulteration as already explained

above. <<<<

 

The said adulterating principle is constituted of a combination of

the stupefying quality of the deluding energy, the quality of

nonplenitude of the marginal potency and a slight degree of the

ecstatic-cum-cognitive principle of the plenary spiritual potency.

This specifically adulterated reflection of the principle of the

subjective portion of the Divinity is Sadasiva, in the form of the

effulgent masculine-symbol-god Sambhu from whom Rudradeva is

manifested.

 

>>>> If memory serves me right, this rudradeva mentioned above is

born of brahma as said in Chandogya Upanisad of Sama Veda. Again I am

relying on my memory. So yeah now see that Sambhu who is Lord Krishna

transformed into his subservient manifests himself again as Rudra,

the son of brahma. If I remember correctly even bhagavatam talks

about birth of rudra from brahma as his son. <<<<

 

In the work of mundane creation as the material cause, in the work of

preservation by the destruction of sundry asuras and in the work of

destruction to conduct the whole operation, Govinda manifests Himself

as guna-avatara in the form of Sambhu who is the separated portion of

Govinda imbued with the principle of His subjective plenary portion.

The personality of the destructive principle in the form of time has

been identified with what of Sambhu by scriptural evidences that have

been adduced in the commentary. The purport of the Bhagavata slokas,

viz., vaisnavanam yatha sambhuh, etc., is that Sambhu, in pursuance

of the will of Govinda, works in union with his consort Durga-devi by

his own time energy. He teaches pious duties (dharma) as stepping-

stones to the attainment of spiritual service in the various tantra-

sastras, etc., suitable for jivas in different grades of the

conditional existence. In obedience to the will of Govinda, Sambhu

maintains and fosters the religion of pure devotion by preaching the

cult of illusionist (Mayavada) and the speculative agama-sastras. The

fifty attributes of individual souls are manifest in a far vaster

measure in Sambhu and five additional attributes not attainable by

jivas are also partly found in him. So Sambhu cannot be called a

jiva. He is the lord of jiva but yet partakes of the nature of a

separate portion of Govinda.

 

>>>> Why is he called seperate portion because his nature is

adulterated by particular elements told above....In that sense he is

seperated from Govinda who is ever "unadulterated". Now that we know

that he is seperated portion of Govinda without any independent

initiative meaning following Lord Krishnas orders/wishes just like

other dependents[demigods]. From this point of view he is a demigod

and henceforth you should understand Vaishnavas thinking that don't

compare him to Vishnu or Krishna who are independent unadulterated

principle alone. And yet he is also called God or non different from

Vishnu because actually unadulterated Vishnu himself has accepted

this adulterated personality of Lord Shiva. Because of the unique

position Krishna has accepted in the form of Lord Shiva you will see

devotees and scripture saying different or apparently contradicting

statements. However followers of Sri Chaitanya and Brahma Samhita

exactly know the lila of Sri Krishna and remain undeluded by apparent

contradiction involved in case of Lord Shivas unique position. All

this is learnt through text of brahma samhita glorified by

Krishnadasa Kaviraja as brief presentation of all Vaishnava

conclusions and the purport of Srila Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati the

effulgent guru in our parampara. <<<<

 

I hope this helps and doesn't confuses you any further.

 

 

Your Servant Always

Sumeet.

[Guest guest]

cc adi 6.79 purport

 

Prabhupada: "...Lord Siva is therefore simultaneously an expansion of

Lord Visnu and, in his capacity for annihilating the creation, one of

the living entities......In the Väyu Puräna there is a description of

Sadäsiva in one of the Vaikuntha planets. That Sadäsiva is a direct

expansion of Lord Krsna's form for pastimes. It is said that Sadäsiva

(Lord Sambhu) is an expansion from the Sadäsiva in the Vaikuntha

planets..."

----

 

posted by raga here --> http://www.audarya-

fellowship.com/showflat.php?

Cat=&Board=hinduism&Number=430&page=&view=&sb=&o=&fpart=2&vc=1

 

Rupa Gosvami explains in his Laghu Bhagavatamrita:

 

31 Siva's form named Sadasiva, who is a direct expansion of the

Personality of Godhead, is the cause of all causes, is free from the

slightest scent of the mode of ignorance, and resides in Sivaloka, is

described in the Vayu Purana and other scriptures

 

298 Lord Siva, who is known as Sadasiva and Sambhu, is manifest in

the northeast part of Vaikunthaloka

 

raga: "...Sadashiva is the Supreme Lord. More precisely, Sadashiva is

of His vilasa-murtis (vaibhava-vilasa)."

----

 

http://pushtimarg.net/Download/Book/English/Balbodh.pdf

 

Jagadguru Vallabhacharya: "Vishnu is the sustainer of creation while

Shiva is the destroyer. Both have been revealed as such in their own

scriptures. Know without a doubt that the Supreme Brahman is both

Vishnu and Shiva for they have both been declared as the Self of all

things. They have also been described in their own scriptures as

being flawless and replete with all divine virtues." (Balbodh 12-13a)

----

 

posted by sha http://www.audarya-fellowship.com/showflat.php?

Cat=&Board=hinduism&Number=430&page=&view=&sb=&o=&fpart=1&vc=1

 

Visnu purana.5.33.46

'yo hariH sa zivaH sAkSAd yaH zivaH sa svayaM hariH

ye tayor bhedamAti sthan narakAya bhave nnaraH

 

Whoever is Lord Hari, He Himself is Lord Shiva indeed. Whoever is

manifesting as Lord Shiva, He Himself is Lord Hari. Any humanbeing

mistakes both the Lords to be different, he/she surely goes to hell.

----

 

then there is svetasvatara upanisad which looks like it calls siva

supreme

[Guest guest]

achintya, "dhani" <dhannyganesh> wrote:

>

> then there is svetasvatara upanisad which looks like it calls siva

> supreme

 

Yes and no. The Shvetaashvatara does refer to the Supreme Lord by

names traditionally ascribed to Shiva - such as Maheshvara, and so

on. But the context is clearly Vishnu. Don't let Shaivites get away

with saying that Shvetaashvatara Upanishad is a Shaivite text. And

don't even let devotees get away with saying that the references are

to Shiva, because Shiva is a transformation of Vishnu.

Shvetaashvatara Upanishad only speaks of Vishnu. The Sanskrit clearly

speaks of the Lord as being the one who instructed Lord Brahmaa, the

one from whose navel Lord Brahmaa was born, etc.

 

According to Brahma-suutras, any reference to a Deity posessing the

qualities of the Supreme Brahman must be interpreted as referring to

the Supreme Brahman, and not one of the demigods. This is only

sensible, because other deities are named according to certain

qualities which they posess, and since Vishnu is the origin of all

other devatas, then He must certainly posess all of their qualities

in fuller measure.

 

There is a quote in Govinda-bhaashya somewhere, attributed I believe

to a non-extant portion of the Skandha Puraana, wherein it is stated

that Lord Vishnu gave His names to the demigods as a blessing to

them. The purport of this is, if you see a description of the Supreme

Lord and He is addressed as Shiva, Indra, Brahmaa, etc, then you

should undertand it to be in fact a reference to Vishnu. I don't have

my Govinda Bhaashya, as it is packed away. But I think Gerald Surya

has a copy - perhaps if he recalls the verse I'm talking about, he

can provide the exact Sanskrit reference.

 

yours,

 

- K

[Guest guest]

achintya, "krishna_susarla"

<krishna_susarla@h...> wrote:

"...The Shvetaashvatara does refer to the Supreme Lord by

names traditionally ascribed to Shiva - such as Maheshvara, and so

on. But the context is clearly Vishnu...... Shiva is a transformation

of Vishnu.

Shvetaashvatara Upanishad only speaks of Vishnu. The Sanskrit

clearly speaks of the Lord as being the one who instructed Lord

Brahmaa, the one from whose navel Lord Brahmaa was born, etc.

According to Brahma-suutras, any reference to a Deity posessing the

qualities of the Supreme Brahman must be interpreted as referring to

the Supreme Brahman, and not one of the demigods..."

----

 

since sadasiva is visnu tattva, could the shvetaashvatara be refering

to him

[Guest guest]

achintya, "dhani" <dhannyganesh> wrote:

>

> since sadasiva is visnu tattva, could the shvetaashvatara be

refering

> to him

 

What is the meaning of Vishnu-tattva if Sadaashiva is Vishnu-tattva?

If Sadaashiva is Vishnu-tattva, then it should be possible for one to

worship Sadaashiva and still gain liberation. Is it possible? No.

 

I therefore recommend we stick to standard terminology used by our

aachaaryas when describing Shiva. The Brahma-samhitaa states that

Shiva is a "transformation" of Vishnu. A transformation is still

different from that from which it came. I have also heard it said

that this Sadaashiva is also expanded from the sight of Mahaa-Vishnu

when He desired that the creation be effected from the Pradhaana (I

don't recall the source). The point is, while SadaaShiva is

intimately connected with Vishnu, he isn't the same as Vishnu, and

that is why we do not worship him for attaining the supreme goal.

 

There is no reason to think that Shvetaashvatara Upanishad is

referring to anyone other than Vishnu, the references

to "Rudra,Shiva,Maheshvara" notwithstanding. Again, please see

the context (these are translations from a secular scholar, my

Gaudiya Math copy of the Sv Up is packed up):

 

yo devaanaaM prabhavashchodbhavashcha

vishvaadhipo rudro maharshhiH .

hiraNyagarbha.n janayaamaasa puurva.n

sa no buddhyaa shubhayaa sa.nyunaktu .. 4..

 

3.4. He, the creator and supporter of the gods, Rudra, the great

seer, the lord of all, he who formerly gave birth to Hiranyagarbha,

may he endow us with good thoughts

 

vedaahametaM purushhaM mahaanta\-

maadityavarNa.n tamasaH parastaat.h .

tameva viditvaatimR^ityumeti

naanyaH panthaa vidyate.ayanaaya .. 8..

 

3.8. I know that great person (purusha) of sunlike lustre beyond the

darkness. A man who knows him truly, passes over death; there is no

other path to go.

 

yasmaat.h para.n naaparamasti ki.nchidya\-

smaannaNiiyo na jyaayo.asti kashchit.h .

vR^ixa iva stabdho divi tishhThatyeka\-

stenedaM puurNaM purushheNa sarvam.h .. 9..

 

3.9. This whole universe is filled by this person (purusha), to whom

there is nothing superior, from whom there is nothing different, than

whom there is nothing smaller or larger, who stands alone, fixed like

a tree in the sky.

 

sarvaanana shirogriivaH sarvabhuutaguhaashayaH .

sarvavyaapii sa bhagavaa.nstasmaat.h sarvagataH shivaH .. 11..

 

3.11. That Bhagavat exists in the faces, the heads, the necks of all,

he dwells in the cave (of the heart) of all beings, he is all-

pervading, therefore he is the omnipresent Siva.

 

apaaNipaado javano grahiitaa

pashyatyachaxuH sa shR^iNotyakarNaH .

sa vetti vedya.n na cha tasyaasti vettaa

tamaahuragryaM purushhaM mahaantam.h .. 19..

 

3.19. Grasping without hands, hasting without feet, he sees without

eyes, he hears without ears. He knows what can be known, but no one

knows him; they call him the first, the great person (purusha).

 

yo devaanaaM prabhavashchodbhavashcha

vishvaadhipo rudro maharshhiH .

hiraNyagarbhaM pashyata jaayamaana.n

sa no buddhyaa shubhayaa sa.nyunaktu .. 12..

 

4.12. He, the creator and supporter of the gods, Rudra, the great

seer, the lord of all, who saw Hiranyagarbha being born, may he endow

us with good thoughts.

 

yo brahmaaNa.n vidadhaati puurva.n

yo vai vedaa.nshcha prahiNoti tasmai .

ta.n ha devaM aatmabuddhiprakaashaM

mumuxurvai sharaNamahaM prapadye .. 18..

 

6.18. Seeking for freedom I go for refuge to that God who is the

light of his own tboughts, he who first creates Brahman (m.) and

delivers the Vedas to him;

 

>From the above, several things are understood about this Supreme

Deity being praised by the Shvetaashvatara Upanishad:

1) He gave birth to Hiranyagarbha (Brahmaa) and instructed him in the

Vedas

2) He is the supreme goal, beyond which nothing is superior

3) He pervades the entire universe

4) He dwells in the hearts of all living entities

5) Knowing Him frees one from one's mortal coil

 

All of the above can only apply to Lord Vishnu, even to the most die-

hard Advaitin. Lord Vishnu is the one from whom Brahmaa was born, and

Brahmaa heard Vedas from Him. Lord Vishnu is the supreme goal as also

mentioned in Bhagavad-gita, and He pervades the entire universe in

many ways, which is why some sages meditate on Him as the Viraat-

purusha (Universal form). Lord Vishnu is one who expands as

Paramaatmaa and dwells in the hearts of all living entities. The last

statement, that knowledge of Vishnu grants liberation, is also

supported in shaastra. Advaitins might claim that this could refer to

Shiva, since that is what they are trying to prove here, but Shiva is

not the one who gave birth to Brahmaa and gave him Vedas.

 

yours,

 

- K

[Guest guest]

"krishna_susarla" <krishna_susarla@h...> wrote:

....What is the meaning of Vishnu-tattva if Sadaashiva is Vishnu-

tattva? If Sadaashiva is Vishnu-tattva, then it should be possible

for one to worship Sadaashiva and still gain liberation. Is it

possible? No.

>

> I therefore recommend we stick to standard terminology used by our

> aachaaryas when describing Shiva. The Brahma-samhitaa states that

> Shiva is a "transformation" of Vishnu. A transformation is still

> different from that from which it came. I have also heard it said

> that this Sadaashiva is also expanded from the sight of Mahaa-

Vishnu when He desired that the creation be effected from the

Pradhaana (I don't recall the source). The point is, while SadaaShiva

is intimately connected with Vishnu, he isn't the same as Vishnu, and

> that is why we do not worship him for attaining the supreme goal.

>

> There is no reason to think that Shvetaashvatara Upanishad is

> referring to anyone other than Vishnu...

----

 

perhaps u r referring to the sambhu expansion of sadasiva. (aside, i

think sb 4.6.43 is also referring to the sambhu expansion of sadasiva

but i dont know) ive shown in a previous post that sadasiva is a

direct expansion (visnu tattva). gaudiya acaryas recognize that he is

visnu tattva but mainly consider him as a devotee like advaita acarya

& gopisvara mahadev

----

aside, heres some more stuff on shivas position

SB 4.6.

42 Lord Brahma; said: My dear Lord Siva, I know that you are

the controller of the entire material manifestation, the combination

father and mother of the cosmic manifestation, and the Supreme

Brahman beyond the cosmic manifestation as well. I know you in that

way.

 

purport: "...Lord Siva's position is described in Brahma-

samhita: there is NO DIFFERENCE between Lord Visnu and Lord

Siva IN THEIR ORIGINAL POSITIONS, but still Lord Siva is different

from Lord Visnu. The example is given that the milk in yogurt is not

different from the original milk from which it was made"

 

43 My dear lord, you create this cosmic manifestation, maintain it,

and annihilate it by expansion of your personality, exactly as a

spider creates, maintains and winds up its web

 

46 My dear Lord, devotees who have fully dedicated their lives unto

your lotus feet certainly observe your presence as Paramatma in each

and every being, and as such they do not differentiate between one

living being and another. Such persons treat all living entities

equally. They never become overwhelmed by anger like animals, who can

see nothing without differentiation

[Guest guest]

Perhaps we should define some terms in order to clarify:

 

"Sadaashiva" refers to the expansion of Mahaa-Vishnu. This is the

deity referred to in Brahma-samhitaa 5.45 as being like a

transformation of Vishnu as yogurt is a transformation of milk. This

Sadaashiva has his planet at the interface of the material and

spiritual worlds (see BrS 5.44) known as Mahesh-dhaam. (The BrS

refers to this "Sadaashiva" as "Shambhu," but I think the latter can

also refer to any of his other expansions, so I will not go so far as

to say that any reference to "Shambhu" automatically refers

to "Sadaashiva.")

 

"Shiva" refers to an expansion of this "Sadaashiva." This Lord Shiva

resides in the material world atop the Kailasa mountain, is a

qualitative incarnation who presides over the material mode of

ignorance, who is the object of worship of the Shiva bhaktas, and who

has Paarvatii as his consort.

 

Now on with the discussion:

 

achintya, "dhani" <dhannyganesh> wrote:

> "krishna_susarla" <krishna_susarla@h...> wrote:

> ...What is the meaning of Vishnu-tattva if Sadaashiva is Vishnu-

> tattva? If Sadaashiva is Vishnu-tattva, then it should be possible

> for one to worship Sadaashiva and still gain liberation. Is it

> possible? No.

> >

> > I therefore recommend we stick to standard terminology used by

our

> > aachaaryas when describing Shiva. The Brahma-samhitaa states that

> > Shiva is a "transformation" of Vishnu. A transformation is still

> > different from that from which it came. I have also heard it said

> > that this Sadaashiva is also expanded from the sight of Mahaa-

> Vishnu when He desired that the creation be effected from the

> Pradhaana (I don't recall the source). The point is, while

SadaaShiva

> is intimately connected with Vishnu, he isn't the same as Vishnu,

and

> > that is why we do not worship him for attaining the supreme goal.

> >

> > There is no reason to think that Shvetaashvatara Upanishad is

> > referring to anyone other than Vishnu...

> --

--

 

On the above point, re: the Deity referred to Shvetaashvatara

Upanishad, I just wanted to quote something Srila Prabhupada wrote in

his Bhagavad-giitaa 5.29 purport:

 

"He is greater than the greatest of the demigods, Lord Shiva and Lord

Brahmaa. In the Vedas (Shvetaashvatara Upanishad 6.7) the Supreme

Lord is described as tam iishvaraaNaa.m parama.m maheshvaram."

 

It is therefore clear that Srila Prabhupada considers to the "Shiva"

references in Shvetaashvatara Upanishad 6.7 to in fact be references

to Vishnu, the Sadaashiva "transformation" of Vishnu notwithstanding.

 

> perhaps u r referring to the sambhu expansion of sadasiva. (aside,

i

> think sb 4.6.43 is also referring to the sambhu expansion of

sadasiva

> but i dont know) ive shown in a previous post that sadasiva is a

> direct expansion (visnu tattva). gaudiya acaryas recognize that he

is

> visnu tattva but mainly consider him as a devotee like advaita

acarya

> & gopisvara mahadev

 

I am referring to Sadaashiva, the direct but partial expansion of

Mahaa-Vishnu. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati says in his purport to

BrS 5.45 that he "is not a second Godhead other than Krishna." But

then he says "The supremacy of Shambhu is subserviant to that of

Govinda; hence they are not really different from each other. The non-

distinction is established by the fat that just as milk treated with

acid turns into curd so Godhead becomes a subservient when He Himself

attains a distinct personality by the addition of a particular

element of adulteration. This personality has not independent

initiative."

 

It should be noted that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta appears to be

using "Shambhu" to refer to Sadaashiva, and then uses "Rudradeva" to

refer to the expansion of this Sadaashiva into the material world. He

thus writes, "This specifically adulterated reflection of the

principle of the subjective portion of the Divinity is Sadaashiva, in

the form of the effulgent masculine-symbol-god Shambhu from whom

Rudradeva is manifested." Later I think he then refers to "Shambhu"

as the expansion of Sadaashiva, but this is not germane here.

 

What is clear from the above is that Sadaashiva is not a jiiva, but

a "partial" expansion of Mahaa-Vishnu. He has an adulterating

principle that makes him different from Mahaa-Vishnu, and thus he is

not Vishnu-tattva. But because he is not a jiiva but rather a direct

expansion of Vishnu, he may be in that sense, seen as nondifferent

from Vishnu. Context will be important in evaluating. More on this

below.

 

> --

--

> aside, heres some more stuff on shivas position

> SB 4.6.

> 42 Lord Brahma; said: My dear Lord Siva, I know that you are

> the controller of the entire material manifestation, the

combination

> father and mother of the cosmic manifestation, and the Supreme

> Brahman beyond the cosmic manifestation as well. I know you in that

> way.

 

Although this Shiva is in fact the mind-born son of Lord Brahmaa, he

is none other than an exapnsion of the very Sadaashiva who was

expanded from Mahaa-Vishnu and transformed with an adulterating

principle which makes him a subordinate entity. Yet, from the

perspective of a jiiva, Shiva is still more akin to the Supreme Lord.

This is why Brahmaa glorifies him in this way.

 

>

> purport: "...Lord Siva's position is described in Brahma-

> samhita: there is NO DIFFERENCE between Lord Visnu and Lord

> Siva IN THEIR ORIGINAL POSITIONS, but still Lord Siva is different

> from Lord Visnu. The example is given that the milk in yogurt is

not

> different from the original milk from which it was made"

 

What are the original positions being referred to here? I think you

consider them to refer to Sadaashiva and Mahaa-Vishnu. The thing is,

even in these original positions there is a difference, as explained

by Brahma-samhitaa which describes Sadaashiva as a transformation of

Mahaa-Vishnu. Just as you can get yogurt from milk, but you cannot

get milk from yogurt, so also is Sadaashiva expanded from Vishnu, but

Vishnu cannot expand from Sadaashiva. I disagree that

the "nondifference" makes Sadaashiva a full Vishnu-tattva. If this

were the case, then one should be able to directly get liberation by

worship of him, which is not accepted by our aachaaryas.

 

> 43 My dear lord, you create this cosmic manifestation, maintain it,

> and annihilate it by expansion of your personality, exactly as a

> spider creates, maintains and winds up its web

>

> 46 My dear Lord, devotees who have fully dedicated their lives unto

> your lotus feet certainly observe your presence as Paramatma in

each

> and every being, and as such they do not differentiate between one

> living being and another. Such persons treat all living entities

> equally. They never become overwhelmed by anger like animals, who

can

> see nothing without differentiation

 

Again, I agree that Brahmaa is seeing the "nondifference" from Vishnu

by the above verses. But this nondifference is still qualified by

enough of a difference to make Sadaashiva a subordinate entity who

cannot independently give liberation. This is why I do not accept

that he is "Vishnu-Tattva," unless our aachaaryas explicitly

say "Sadaashiva is Vishnu-Tattva."

 

You mentioned a Vishnu Puraana shloka:

 

Visnu purana.5.33.46

'yo hariH sa zivaH sAkSAd yaH zivaH sa svayaM hariH

ye tayor bhedamAti sthan narakAya bhave nnaraH

 

Whoever is Lord Hari, He Himself is Lord Shiva indeed. Whoever is

manifesting as Lord Shiva, He Himself is Lord Hari. Any humanbeing

mistakes both the Lords to be different, he/she surely goes to hell.

 

I haven't had the chance to check up on this, but I will certainly do

so. We need to get at the correct understanding of it.

 

regards,

 

- K

[Guest guest]

i think prabhupada (& perhaps also BST) uses 'sambhu' & 'sadasiva'

interchangably as it appears he does here:

 

"...It is said that Sadäsiva (Lord Sambhu) is an expansion from the

Sadäsiva in the Vaikuntha planets..."

 

cc adi 6.79 purport

 

Prabhupada: "...Lord Siva is therefore simultaneously an expansion of

Lord Visnu and, in his capacity for annihilating the creation, one of

the living entities......In the Väyu Puräna there is a description of

Sadäsiva in one of the Vaikuntha planets. That Sadäsiva is a direct

expansion of Lord Krsna's form for pastimes. It is said that Sadäsiva

(Lord Sambhu) is an expansion from the Sadäsiva in the Vaikuntha

planets..."

----

for what its worth:

 

http://www.vnn.org/editorials/ET0009/ET23-6280.html

 

narayan maharaj: "...In Brhat Bhagavatamrta Sankhara told

Narada, 'Prahlada Maharaja is superior to me.' No harm. On the other

hand Sankhara is Sadasiva himself. He is Visnu-tattva and he is also

Gopisvara Mahadeva."

 

 

http://gaudiya.net/portal/articles/tour&parikrama/Who_is_Praudhamaya.h

tm (broken url)

 

narayan maharaj: "...Siva means auspicious. Siva deludes those who

are averse to Krsna, and He is favorable to and helps those who are

His devotees. Sankara-tattva or Siva-tattva is very complex. He is

not Visnu, nor is he a jiva. He is not maya-tattva, but he is not

beyond maya-tattva. As Sada-Siva he is Visnu-tattva. As Visnu-tattva

he is svamsa, a plenary portion of Krsna. Also, when Krsna incarnates

in the three modes of nature, Siva is the predominating deity of tama-

guna, the mode of ignorance. Brahma Samhita states that Siva is a

combination of tama-guna, the quality of minuteness of the marginal

potency, and a minute degree of the mixture of Samvit and Hladini..."

 

 

http://www.gaudiya.net/sbnm/text/y2000/lecture20000524.htm (broken)

 

nm: "...The jivas cannot be created, they are eternal, but they are

coming from the light, the sight of Karanadaksayi Vishnu. You should

know what is that light. The dim reflection of that light is a

combination of the abhasa or semblance of cit-sakti. The abhasa of

the tatastha or marginal mood, plus vibhinamsa-tattva, plus maya-

shakti. It is a mixture of all these four things, and it is called

Sambhu-linga. It is from there that the jivas are coming. Sambhu-

linga is a semblance of Sadasiva-tattva..."

 

 

http://gaudiya.net/sbnm/text/y2000/lecture20000305.htm (broken)

 

nm: "...Tamoguna, or the material quality of inertia, the quality of

minuteness of the marginal potency, and a minute degree of the

mixture of Divine Cognizance (Samvit) and Ecstasy (Hladini) - all

these elements combined constitute a particular transformation. This

transformation constitutes the halo (dim reflection of the light) of

the Divinity as the masculine generative organ, the Lord Sambhu form

of Sadasiva. From Sambhu, Rudradeva is manifest...

 

In the beginning of creation Sri Krishna desired to perform Rasa

dance. At that time Svarupa-sakti, Hladini-sakti Srimati Radhika was

manifest from His left side. Sadasiva - the same Sadasiva who is

Gopisvara Mahadeva - was manifest from His right side. The Siva who

lives in Kasi or Kailash in this world, is the amsa, or part of a

part, of Svayam Sadasiva in Vrindavana

 

The many other forms of Siva, such as Sankara and Rudra, who are

being worshiped by common people, are semblance's of Sadasiva. They

are not the original. Sankara, who is worshiped by local people as

Pippaleshwara Mahadeva, Bhuteswara Mahadeva, Rangeswara Mahadeva and

so on, cannot award this highest Vraja-prema"

 

 

http://swami.org/sanga/archives/pages/volume_two/m101.html

 

tripurari swami: "Siva is best thought of from the Vaisnava

perspective as a devotee of Krsna. But he is also God, although

somewhat differently from the way in which Rama and Krsna are God.

Then again, Sadasiva is God in every respect. Siva is a complex

tattva. Always keep the highest regard for him"

----

 

also, the translations of laghu bhagavatamrta i copy-pasted

previously from a post by raga (of raganuga.com) on audarya forums

seem to say that sadasiva is a direct expansion residing in vaikuntha

 

http://www.audarya-fellowship.com/showflat.php?

Cat=&Board=hinduism&Number=430&page=&view=&sb=&o=&fpart=2&vc=1

 

"Rupa Gosvami explains in his Laghu Bhagavatamrita:

 

31 Siva's form named Sadasiva, who is a direct expansion of the

Personality of Godhead, is the cause of all causes, is free from the

slightest scent of the mode of ignorance, and resides in Sivaloka, is

described in the Vayu Purana and other scriptures

 

298 Lord Siva, who is known as Sadasiva and Sambhu, is manifest in

the northeast part of Vaikunthaloka"

 

for what its worth, according to raga: "...Sadashiva is the Supreme

Lord. More precisely, Sadashiva is of His vilasa-murtis (vaibhava-

vilasa)"

----

 

posted by K:

 

"> purport: "...Lord Siva's position is described in Brahma-

> samhita: there is NO DIFFERENCE between Lord Visnu and Lord

> Siva IN THEIR ORIGINAL POSITIONS, but still Lord Siva is different

> from Lord Visnu. The example is given that the milk in yogurt is

not

> different from the original milk from which it was made"

 

What are the original positions being referred to here? I think you

consider them to refer to Sadaashiva and Mahaa-Vishnu..."

 

 

yes, that is what i think they refer to

 

K: "...unless our aachaaryas explicitly say "Sadaashiva is Vishnu-

Tattva."

 

perhaps we can find out if rupa gosvami says so in the original text

of the laghu bhagavatamrta verses i copy pasted. i dont have access

(nor can i read bengali or sanskrit) to the original text but mayb u

do

 

K: "You mentioned a Vishnu Puraana shloka:

 

Visnu purana.5.33.46

'yo hariH sa zivaH sAkSAd yaH zivaH sa svayaM hariH

ye tayor bhedamAti sthan narakAya bhave nnaraH

 

Whoever is Lord Hari, He Himself is Lord Shiva indeed. Whoever is

manifesting as Lord Shiva, He Himself is Lord Hari. Any humanbeing

mistakes both the Lords to be different, he/she surely goes to hell.

 

I haven't had the chance to check up on this, but I will certainly do

so. We need to get at the correct understanding of it.

 

ya i copy pasted this from some1's post on audarya forums. i would

also like to get at the correct understanding of it

[Guest guest]

posted by dhani:

------------------------------

perhaps we can find out if rupa gosvami says so in the original text

of the laghu bhagavatamrta verses i copy pasted. i dont have access

(nor can i read bengali or sanskrit) to the original text but mayb u

do

------------------------------

 

the transliteration of laghu bhagavatamrta can be downloaded from

www.granthamandira.org

[Guest guest]

posted by K:

--------------------

> On the above point, re: the Deity referred to Shvetaashvatara

> Upanishad, I just wanted to quote something Srila Prabhupada wrote

in his Bhagavad-giitaa 5.29 purport:

>

> "He is greater than the greatest of the demigods, Lord Shiva and

Lord Brahmaa. In the Vedas (Shvetaashvatara Upanishad 6.7) the

Supreme Lord is described as tam iishvaraaNaa.m parama.m maheshvaram."

>

> It is therefore clear that Srila Prabhupada considers to

the "Shiva" references in Shvetaashvatara Upanishad 6.7 to in fact be

references to Vishnu, the Sadaashiva "transformation" of Vishnu

notwithstanding

--------------------

 

http://vedabase.net/cc/adi/6/79

 

prabhupada: "...The annihilator, Rudra, is born from Sankarsana and

the ultimate fire to burn the whole creation. In the Vayu Purana

there is a description of Sadasiva in one of the Vaikuntha planets.

That Sadasiva is a direct expansion of Lord Krsna's form for

pastimes. It is said that Sadasiva (Lord Sambhu) is an expansion from

the Sadasiva in the Vaikuntha planets (Lord Visnu) and that his

consort, Mahamaya, is an expansion of Rama-devi, or Laksmi. Mahamaya

is the origin or birthplace of material nature"

 

 

"...Sadasiva (Lord Sambhu) is an expansion from the Sadasiva in the

Vaikuntha planets (Lord Visnu)..."

 

i dont know who put '(Lord Visnu)', prabhupada or iskcon's bbt. if it

was prabhupada he seems to equate sadasiva with visnu. assuming he

does equate them then, as far as i can see, theres no problem in

saying svetasvatara upanisad refers to sadasiva

[Guest guest]

achintya, "dhani" <dhannyganesh> wrote:

> posted by K:

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

> > On the above point, re: the Deity referred to Shvetaashvatara

> > Upanishad, I just wanted to quote something Srila Prabhupada

wrote

> in his Bhagavad-giitaa 5.29 purport:

> >

> > "He is greater than the greatest of the demigods, Lord Shiva and

> Lord Brahmaa. In the Vedas (Shvetaashvatara Upanishad 6.7) the

> Supreme Lord is described as tam iishvaraaNaa.m parama.m

maheshvaram."

> >

> > It is therefore clear that Srila Prabhupada considers to

> the "Shiva" references in Shvetaashvatara Upanishad 6.7 to in fact

be

> references to Vishnu, the Sadaashiva "transformation" of Vishnu

> notwithstanding

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

>

> http://vedabase.net/cc/adi/6/79

>

> prabhupada: "...The annihilator, Rudra, is born from Sankarsana and

> the ultimate fire to burn the whole creation. In the Vayu Purana

> there is a description of Sadasiva in one of the Vaikuntha planets.

> That Sadasiva is a direct expansion of Lord Krsna's form for

> pastimes. It is said that Sadasiva (Lord Sambhu) is an expansion

from

> the Sadasiva in the Vaikuntha planets (Lord Visnu) and that his

> consort, Mahamaya, is an expansion of Rama-devi, or Laksmi.

Mahamaya

> is the origin or birthplace of material nature"

>

>

> "...Sadasiva (Lord Sambhu) is an expansion from the Sadasiva in the

> Vaikuntha planets (Lord Visnu)..."

 

It is clear that Srila Prabhupada is using the terms Sadaashiva and

Shambhu interchangeably.

 

>

> i dont know who put '(Lord Visnu)', prabhupada or iskcon's bbt. if

it

> was prabhupada he seems to equate sadasiva with visnu. assuming he

> does equate them then, as far as i can see, theres no problem in

> saying svetasvatara upanisad refers to sadasiva

 

No, I still disagree. In the above Gita purport, Srila Prabhupada

mentions Shiva and Brahmaa, and then in the same sentence mentions

the supreme Lord as Maheshvara. Have you read all of Shvetaashvatara

Upanishad? I have. The references are clearly to Vishnu, even though

names like Shambu, etc are used. For example (as quoted previously),

the Supreme Lord is identified as He who gave birth to and instructed

Lord Brahmaa. Everyone knows this person is Vishnu, not Shiva.

 

There is no reason why Lord Vishnu, being the source of all demigods

and the source of all qualities, cannot have names which also apply

to the demigods and the qualities they got from Him.

 

That Sadaashiva is a "direct expansion" of Lord Vishnu still does not

imply complete sameness. All of us are expanded from the Lord, but we

aren't equal to Him.

 

Any discussion of Lord Shiva vis-a-vis Vishnu must take all pramaanas

into account. Quoting only the ones which make them out to be the

same will lead to one conclusion, but quoting all pramaanas (the ones

saying they are same and the ones saying they are different) will

lead to a different conclusion.

 

If Lord Shiva is exactly the same, then one should be able to worship

him and directly get liberation? Is it possible? I don't think you

answered this question.

 

So far I have not seen anything saying that "Shiva is Vishnu-tattva,"

only that he is expanded from Vishnu.

 

yours,

 

- K

[Guest guest]

K: "If Lord Shiva is exactly the same, then one should be able to

worship him and directly get liberation? Is it possible? I don't

think you answered this question"

 

if sadasiva is visnu tattva then i would guess it is possible

[Guest guest]

"Any discussion of Lord Shiva vis-a-vis Vishnu must take all

pramaanas into account. Quoting only the ones which make them out to

be the same will lead to one conclusion, but quoting all pramaanas

(the ones saying they are same and the ones saying they are

different) will lead to a different conclusion"

 

how about a discussion specifically on sadasiva

[Guest guest]

achintya, "dhani" <dhannyganesh> wrote:

> K: "If Lord Shiva is exactly the same, then one should be able to

> worship him and directly get liberation? Is it possible? I don't

> think you answered this question"

>

> if sadasiva is visnu tattva then i would guess it is possible

 

Guessing is not sufficient. Find me proof of this (that liberation

can be obtained by worship of Sadaashiva) from our aachaaryas'

writings. Don't guess.

 

I am not distinguishing from Sadaashiva or Shiva for the purposes of

this discussion. As Shiva in material world is nondifferent from

Sadaashiva in Mahesh Dhaam, there is no reason to think that

the "difference" pramaanas only apply to one while "sameness"

pramaanas only apply to the other.

[Guest guest]

"Madhava" <k_madhava@h...> wrote:

Many places in Vedas it is said that Shiva and Vishnu are non

different (Shivaya Vishnua rupaya Shiva rupaya Vishnave)

---

 

wherein vedas it says that