Question(s) on Shiva as Vishnu Transformed.

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna,

 

In our gaudiya literature it seems to be an accepted fact that Shiva

is vishnu transformed into non-vishnu-tattva.

 

How then we preserve statements which says that Vishnu/brahman is

immutable and He always exists as He is, without slightest trace of

unadulteration ? How can he come under sway of his own maya as Lord

Shiva is sometimes said to be influenced by maya ?

 

Basically how can the immutable change into something it isn't in

reality.

 

How Vishnu's nature can be adulterated ?

 

Your Servant Always

Sumeet.

[Guest guest]

>How then we preserve statements which says that Vishnu/brahman is >immutable

and He always exists as He is, without slightest trace of >unadulteration ? How

can he come under sway of his own maya as Lord >Shiva is sometimes said to be

influenced by maya ?>Basically how can the immutable change into something it

isn't in >reality. >How Vishnu's nature can be adulterated ?

Dear Prabhu,

Maya itself is Krishna isn't it. Our philosophy is that

everything is simultaneously one & different with Krishna. They act in

inconceivable ways. Lord Shiva coming under Maya is no wonder as it is

Krishna's Maya.Lord Shiva is the same as Krishna. At the same time, he is also

quite different, in that in many occassions He acts like a Jiva does, because

of Krishna's Maya.

Dasan

Narasimhan

 

 

[Guest guest]

achintya, ranganathan narasimhan

<simhan74> wrote:

>

>

> sumeet1981 <sumeet1981> wrote:

> >How then we preserve statements which says that Vishnu/brahman is

> >immutable and He always exists as He is, without slightest trace

of

> >unadulteration ? How can he come under sway of his own maya as

Lord

> >Shiva is sometimes said to be influenced by maya ?

>

> >Basically how can the immutable change into something it isn't in

> >reality.

>

> >How Vishnu's nature can be adulterated ?

>

> Dear Prabhu,

>

> Maya itself is Krishna isn't it. Our

philosophy is that everything is simultaneously one & different with

Krishna. They act in inconceivable ways. Lord Shiva coming under Maya

is no wonder as it is Krishna's Maya.Lord Shiva is the same as

Krishna. At the same time, he is also quite different, in that in

many occassions He acts like a Jiva does, because of Krishna's Maya.

>

>

> Dasan

>

> Narasimhan

 

Hare Krishna,

 

Dear Sir you didn't answer my question. Perhaps you didn't understand

it. Let me be clear.

 

Lord Shiva is not energy of Brahman[sri Krishna] neither

manifestation of its energy. He is not manifestation of Krishnas

energy like this material world or jivatama etc..... Lord Shiva is

brahman itself why because according to Gaudiya Philosophy he is

brahman transformed.

 

Philosophy of achintya bedha-abheda is related to sakitman and its

sakti and not between saktiman and saktiman. Lord Shiva and Lord

Krishna both comes under category of Saktiman, possesor of energies.

Hence achintya bheda abheda isn't applicable in their case.

 

So, back to my question how can immutable brahman transform ? How can

it be adulterated ?

 

Your Servant Always

Sumeet.

 

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

achintya, "sumeet1981" <sumeet1981> wrote:

> So, back to my question how can immutable brahman transform ? How

can

> it be adulterated ?

 

Sumeet, this is a good question. The answer is that Vishnu does

not "transform" and become Shiva. The wording of the Brahma-samhitaa

is designed to explain the relationship between the two even though

the language may be limited for the task. It is like saying that the

Lord is the "author" of the Vedas, or that He "created" the jiivas,

even though both Vedas and jiivas are without beginning. Or it's like

saying that Balaraama is expanded from Krishna, even though

Balaraama's existence is eternal and without beginning.

 

Similarly, the description of Shiva as a "tranformation" of Vishnu is

to get across the idea that he is almost like Vishnu, but not quite -

due to an adulterating principle present in Shiva. Sadaashiva's

existence is also eternal, so it's not that there was some time

before which he did not exist, and then Vishnu decided to

expand/transform Himself to get Shiva. Shiva is not the Supreme

Brahman, but he is almost like that Brahman. But he is not a jiiva.

So the language employed is used to illustrate the fact that Shiva is

more like Brahman than a jiiva, i.e. like yogurt is very similar to

milk but not quite the same. But he is not exactly the same -

hence "transformation." It is not that Vishnu "transformed" Himself

to get Shiva. You are quite correct that according to Vedaanta,

Brahman is unchangeable. The language of "transformation" is meant to

make clear that Shiva is in an intermediate category between jiivas

and Brahman.

[Guest guest]

achintya, "krishna_susarla"

<krishna_susarla@h...> wrote:

 

> So the language employed is used to illustrate the fact that Shiva

is

> more like Brahman than a jiiva, i.e. like yogurt is very similar

to

> milk but not quite the same. But he is not exactly the same -

> hence "transformation." It is not that Vishnu "transformed"

Himself

> to get Shiva. You are quite correct that according to Vedaanta,

> Brahman is unchangeable. The language of "transformation" is meant

to

> make clear that Shiva is in an intermediate category between

jiivas

> and Brahman.

 

 

Krishna Prabhu if you read commentary of Sril sarasvati prabhupada

you will see:

" 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. "

 

Please refer to your copy of brahma samhita otherwise BS is

available on iskcon.org under literature.

 

 

Your Servant always

Sumeet.

[Guest guest]

>Dear Sir you didn't answer my question. Perhaps you didn't understand >it. Let

me be clear.>Lord Shiva is not energy of Brahman[sri Krishna] neither

>manifestation of its energy. He is not manifestation of Krishnas >energy like

this material world or jivatama etc..... Lord Shiva is >brahman itself why

because according to Gaudiya Philosophy he is >brahman transformed.>Philosophy

of achintya bedha-abheda is related to saktiman and its >sakti and not between

saktiman and saktiman. Lord Shiva and Lord >Krishna both comes under category

of Saktiman, possesor of energies. >Hence achintya bheda abheda isn't

applicable in their case.>So, back to my question how can immutable brahman

transform ? How can >it be adulterated ?Dear Prabhu, Hare Krishna.

1. regarding the applicability of achintya bheda-abheda:

C.C.Madhya Ch.20.309 purport states:

" Of the three deities supervising the creation, maintenance and dissolution of

the universe, Lord Visnu is never seperate from the Original Visnu.However,

Lord Siva and Brahma, due to their association with maya, are different from

Visnu.Visnu cannot be transformed into any form of material energy.Whenever

there is association with maya, the personality involved must be different from

Lord Visnu. Therefore Lord Siva and Lord Brahma are called Guna avataras, for

they associate with the material qualities.The conclusion is that Rudra is not

exactly Lord Visnu but rather a transformation of Visnu. Therefore He does not

come withing the category of the Visnu-tattvas. Thus he is inconceivably one

with Visnu and different from Him. The example given here is very clear. Milk

is compared to Visnu. As soon as milk touches a sour substance, it becomes

yogurt, or Lord Siva. Although yogurt is constitutionally milk, it cannot be

used in place of milk."

2. Regarding Lord Siva getting under Maya's influence:

CC. Madhya Lila Ch.20.310 Says this

" Milk changes into yogurt when mixed with a yogurt culture, but actually it is

constitutionally nothing but Milk. Similarly, the Supreme Personality of

Godhead, assumes the form of Lord Shiva(Sambhu) for the special purpose of

material transactions. I offer my obeisances at His lotus feet."

The next verse(20.311) is as follows:

Translation: "Lord Siva is an associate of the external energy; Therefore he is

absorbed in the material quality of darkness.Lord Visnu is transcendental to

Maya and the qualities of maya. Therefore He is the Supreme personality of

Godhead.

Purport: Visnu is beyond the range of material manifestation, and He is not

within the control of the material energy. He is the Supreme independent

Personality of Godhead......In his constitutional form, Siva is a

maha-bhagavata, a supreme devotee of the Lord, but because he accepts maya's

association-especially the quality of ignorance- he is not free from maya's

influence. Such an intimate association is completely absent in the Supreme

personality of Godhead, Visnu. Lord Siva accepts maya, but in the presence of

Lord Visnu, maya does not exist. Consequently Lord Siva has to be considered a

product of Maya.When Lord Siva is free from maya's influence, he is in the

position of a maha-bhagavata, a supreme devotee of Lord Visnu. Vaisnavanam

yatha sambhuh.

3. Achintya bheda-abheda is applicable between saktiman & saktiman also.It is

applicable between Krishna and Balarama, Between Krishna and Srimati, Between

Krishna and Gauranga, Between Krishna and Vishnu or between Vishnu and Siva.

I hope this helps.

Dasan

Narasimhan.

 

 

[Guest guest]

achintya, "sumeet1981" <sumeet1981> wrote:

>

> Krishna Prabhu if you read commentary of Sril sarasvati prabhupada

> you will see:

> " 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. "

>

 

Yes I'm aware of that in the commentary. Like I said, I think this is

an example where the wording is selected to convey a point even

though it is not meant to be taken 100% literally. It is like saying

that God created the jiivas, even though He did not; such a statement

conveys the idea of dependence of the latter on the former.

 

Similarly, the idea that Mahaa-Vishnu is "expanded" from Krishna. So

does this imply that there was some time before which Mahaa-Vishnu

did not exist? Clearly not - the language implies a temporal event

even though the point is to convey the idea of taaratamya

(gradations).

 

So it is here - both in the original Sanskrit and Srila

Bhaktisiddhanta's commentary. SadaaShiva is also an eternal entity.

Bhaktisiddhanta saying that Vishnu transformed into Shiva is to

convey the idea of the relationship - not that Shiva was not existing

at some point and thus Vishnu transformed to get Shiva. Shiva is in

an intermediate category between Supreme Brahman and jiivas, but he

is more like Brahman than the jiivas, which is why this is explained

as being like a "transformation" of Brahman.

 

Ofcourse, all of the above is mental speculation until proven

otherwise. But this is how I took it. I think any alternate reading

of the verse and Bhaktisiddhanta's commentary would certainly raise

eyebrows among any Vedaantists.

 

- K

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/20/2003 1:30:02 PM Eastern Standard Time, krishna_susarla (AT) hotmail (DOT) com writes:

Sumeet, this is a good question. The answer is that Vishnu does not "transform"

and become Shiva. The wording of the Brahma-samhitaa is designed to explain the

relationship between the two even though the language may be limited for the

task. It is like saying that the Lord is the "author" of the Vedas, or that He

"created" the jiivas, even though both Vedas and jiivas are without beginning.

Or it's like saying that Balaraama is expanded from Krishna, even though

Balaraama's existence is eternal and without beginning.

It is not that Vishnu "transformed" Himself to get Shiva. You are quite correct

that according to Vedaanta, Brahman is unchangeable. The language of

"transformation" is meant to make clear that Shiva is in an intermediate

category between jiivas and Brahman.

The language of shastra is interesting: many Vaishnava schools say that God is

the material cause of the universe. In a matter of fact sense, they are wrong

and only the Dvaitins are correct: matter is eternally existent, and is its own

material cause, God only acts upon the pre-existing ingredient. However, because

matter in its most primitive state is practically invisible, a hypothetical

spectator to all the events of creation would see matter emanating from God,

(followed by His manipulation of it as the efficient cause). Therefore, Srila

Vyasadeva's language of parinAma-vada (atma-krte-parinamat, Vedanta sutra)

which is correctly understood by all the Vaishnava schools (excluding the

Dvaitins) very vividly describes the God's glorious act of creation.

 

Another example is the word amsha (literally, part) when describing the jiva's

relationship to the Lord. Srila Prabhupada even translates this word as

fragment or part and parcel. The fact of the matter is that the jiva is not a

piece of God as is the belief of bheda-abheda-vadins like Bhaskara, and

therefore Dvaitins would reject the literal meaning of amsha in Vedanta sutra.

However, because the jiva has both similarities and differences with God, Srila

Vyasadeva's use of the word amsha is very appropriate and helpful in

understanding the nature of the jiva.

 

Another example is "the Lord created the jivas". The word "create" has

substantial accurate descriptive power in this statement that it couldn't be

dismissed as figurative. BNK Sharma, a Dvaita scholar, deals with this example

in his discussion of literal poetic language in his Brahma-sutras and its

Principal Commentaries.

 

In the Gaudiya context, this special use of language needs to be especially

appreciated. In the bhakti-sastras, there is perpetual talk of one emotion

transforming into another. This would lead one to believe that one's ultimate

rasa(s) with Krishna is not already fixed. I believe this deviation is not

uncommon among some babajis. However, when the jiva is progressing through

different spiritually emotional states, he does *experience* it as a

transformation. Therefore the language of transformation is useful in helping

literally describe the experience, even though it is does not reflect the

theological fact: a progressive revelation of the intrinsic perfections. This

is not a question of literal vs. figurative, because the languages describing

both perspectives are literal.

 

There has to be a balance between describing the objective theological facts and

the pure subjective experience. One without the other would hamper our

understanding of reality. Therefore, as illustrated above, Vyasadeva achieves

this balance through his use of certain words in alternatively poetic (though

literal) ways.

 

 

ys

Gerald S