Does Lord Shiva have a material body?

[Guruvani]

 

Yes and no. Many times, he is referred as eternal, unborn and anant and only spiritual bodies are unborn while materialistics bodies are not so in this scence he has a spiritual body. But other references indicate that he has a materialistic body such as when bhasmasura wanted to turn shiva to ashes, or when puranas describe his birth as son of brahma or created by lord vishnu. There are mixed answers.

 

The eternal form of Lord Siva is the Sadasiva who is actually a form of Maha-Vishu.

 

Siva and Maha-Vishnu are the same, but when Maha-Vishnu has to engage with Maya Devi he must transform himself into Siva to do that.

 

There are 11 forms of Siva known in the universe and residing in different places at the same time.

 

In the end all these forms of Siva must merge back into Sadasiva.

 

Siva tattva is very mysterious.

 

It's very difficult to fully understand Siva tattva.

 

But apparently Sadasiva has his spiritual realm in the Viraja-river which is the spiritual water that seperates the brahmandas from the Vaikuntha.

 

So, the eternal Sadasivaloka is in the Viraja, not in Vaikuntha proper.

[radhagovind]

 

The eternal form of Lord Siva is the Sadasiva who is actually a form of Maha-Vishu.

 

Siva and Maha-Vishnu are the same, but when Maha-Vishnu has to engage with Maya Devi he must transform himself into Siva to do that.

 

There are 11 forms of Siva known in the universe and residing in different places at the same time.

 

In the end all these forms of Siva must merge back into Sadasiva.

 

Siva tattva is very mysterious.

 

It's very difficult to fully understand Siva tattva.

 

But apparently Sadasiva has his spiritual realm in the Viraja-river which is the spiritual water that seperates the brahmandas from the Vaikuntha.

 

So, the eternal Sadasivaloka is in the Viraja, not in Vaikuntha proper.

I agree, here is an interesting link:

http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/planetarium/index.htm

[Guest guest]

Parvadhighar.

 

Sri Nataraja.

 

The dance is consummated by the fire of annihilation, in which Even Lord Brahma, the creator, is consumed. Only Sri Sesa Balarama, Sri Sesanaga, consumes the form of Lord Siva, restored in unique status.

 

Haribol, ys, mahaksadasa

[krsna]

 

The eternal form of Lord Siva is the Sadasiva who is actually a form of Maha-Vishu.

 

Siva and Maha-Vishnu are the same, but when Maha-Vishnu has to engage with Maya Devi he must transform himself into Siva to do that.

 

There are 11 forms of Siva known in the universe and residing in different places at the same time.

 

In the end all these forms of Siva must merge back into Sadasiva.

 

Siva tattva is very mysterious.

 

It's very difficult to fully understand Siva tattva.

 

But apparently Sadasiva has his spiritual realm in the Viraja-river which is the spiritual water that seperates the brahmandas from the Vaikuntha.

 

So, the eternal Sadasivaloka is in the Viraja, not in Vaikuntha proper.

 

 

Extract from a lecture by Srila Gour Govinda Swami:

 

 

 

Siva-tattva and Guru-tattva<?XML:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O /><O:P> </O:P>

<O:P></O:P>

 

Vaisnavanam yatha sambhuh —

 

Shivaji is a great devotee of Lord Vishnu and Krishna.

In Brahma Purana, Lord Shiva says:

 

 

 

yo hi mam drastum iccheta brahmanam va pitamaham

drastavyas tena bhagavan vasudevah pratapavan<O:P> </O:P>

<O:P></O:P>

 

A person who yearns to see me or to see grandfather Brahma should yearn to see all-powerful Lord Vasudeva.”

(Brahma Purana 226.46 quoted in Bhakti-sandarbha 106.27)<O:P> </O:P>

<O:P></O:P>

Shiva says this because those who know Vasudeva and those who have gotten Vasudeva, they know Shiva and Brahma, they have gotten Shiva and Brahma.

 

Therefore in his purport Srila Prabhupada has described that Shivaji, Brahma, and Vishnu are not equal:

 

 

 

yas tu narayanam devam brahma-rudradi-daivataih

samatvenaiva vikseta sa pasandi bhaved dhruvam

 

 

A person who considers demigods like Brahma and Shiva to be equal with Narayan is to be considered an offender, or pasandi.

(Padma Purana quoted in Hari-bhakti-vilasa 1.117, and Cc. madhya 18.116)<O:P> </O:P>

<O:P></O:P>

They are not equal. But they are equal in the sense of “priyasya sakhyuh”, equal because they are very intimate, dear friends. This is guru-tattva, saksad-dhari, Shivaji is sevaka-bhagavan, servitor Bhagavan. He is asraya-vigraha bhagavan, not visaya-vigraha bhagavan. This is tattva.

 

This siva-tattva and guru-tattva are the same. Guru and Bhagavan, Shiva and Bhagavan, have a very intimate relationship, priya-sakhya; a relationship of lover and beloved, premi-premastata. In that sense there is no difference between Shiva and Krishna, guru and Krishna.

 

In the Caitanya-caritamrta (adi 1.45) it is said, guru krsna-rupa hana sastrera pramane — according to all revealed scriptures, the spiritual master is non-different from Krishna. Therefore we say that guru is Krishna massaging His own legs with His own hands: sadhu-guru-rupe krsna aila nadiya — Krishna took birth in the form of sadhu-guru in Nadiya.

 

This siva-tattva and guru-tattva are the same tattva. It is a very deep tattva. But if someone thinks that Shiva is svatantra-isvara, the independent supreme controller, he commits offense. He becomes pasandi and he will lose bhakti. However, if someone offers worship to Shivaji as a very intimate friend of Krishna, vaisnavanam yatha sambhuh, as the chief of the Vaisnavas, he gets bhakti.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

How can Shiva be Krsna's worshiper. When Krsna was born, people were already worshipping Shiva. It was Vishnu. And Krsna is identified with Vishnu since Krsna is Vishnu's incarnation.

[Guest guest]

Many gods compiled in Vedic history are holograms (expansions) from the spiritual reality. Brahmas and Shivas take birth and go per universe. Krishna is much older than him and exists from the first universe. So birthdate on a planet is not requisite for worship.

 

As for Krishna being an incarnation of Vishnu (Maha-Vishnu obviously implied) I do not know how this works. Krishna is from the Original Krishna. Maha-Vishnu and Ananta Sesa are from the Original Balarama. Perhaps, Krishna is also an incarnation of Maha-Vishnu, however I have not read of an explanation of how.

[Guest guest]

 

Many gods compiled in Vedic history are holograms (expansions) from the spiritual reality. Brahmas and Shivas take birth and go per universe. Krishna is much older than him and exists from the first universe. So birthdate on a planet is not requisite for worship.

 

As for Krishna being an incarnation of Vishnu (Maha-Vishnu obviously implied) I do not know how this works. Krishna is from the Original Krishna. Maha-Vishnu and Ananta Sesa are from the Original Balarama. Perhaps, Krishna is also an incarnation of Maha-Vishnu, however I have not read of an explanation of how.

 

The explaination of Krsnas birth as Vishnus incarnation is all ovr Mahabharata. Even at the time of his birth the prophesies confirm this. Also Krsna comes in the ten great avataras of Vishnu. Others including Ram avatara and others. Original or non original is not the question. Krsna is Vishnu avatara so he is him.

[Guest guest]

 

Or is His body made of Sudda-sattva beyond the gunas of prakritti?

 

Of course Lord shiva's body is Shuddha Sattva beyond the gunas of prakriti and maya. He is not affected by these gunas. The question is kinda naive.

[Guest guest]

 

The explaination of Krsnas birth as Vishnus incarnation is all ovr Mahabharata. Even at the time of his birth the prophesies confirm this. Also Krsna comes in the ten great avataras of Vishnu. Others including Ram avatara and others. Original or non original is not the question. Krsna is Vishnu avatara so he is him.

 

That's fine. Then there are bunch of contradictory verses which goes against that belief. So original/non-original is the question.

[Avinash]

yas tu narayanam devam brahma-rudradi-daivataih

samatvenaiva vikseta sa pasandi bhaved dhruvam

Could you give word-by-word meaning of the above?

 

[Guest guest]

 

That's fine. Then there are bunch of contradictory verses which goes against that belief. So original/non-original is the question.

Yes. n it depends on ur attachment and belief as to what versus u chose n like. Then one can find whatever arguments for backing up vedantically with quotes and ellaborate argumentative logic in favor of his stance. For example, members of the Hare Krsna movement love to believe only that Vishnu is Krsna's expansion and not vice-versa. Since they see Krsna as beginning, so naturally everything is emanating from him, is his "expansion", extension, efulgence, etc.. Fine. Good to believe this. Krsna and Vishnu are the same after all in their basic element. There is functionary difference. Milk-Yogurt? But same Lacto! Its the same Narayana-Vishnu tatva. Of course we have more definitions. Bheda-bhed philosophy has made way too many differenciations. I think its not always too beneficial to keep meditating on these demarcations. Takes away the charm of bhakti making it way too technical. Narayana as Krsna in BG says -He is the origin of everything. Krsna said or Vishnu/Narayana? Doesn't matter much really.

But still there is ellaborate description of Krsna's birth, not Vishnu's. Or I would say Narayana born as Krsna. There is no description of Shiva's "birth" however. Rudra's appearance out of Brahma is not Shiva's birth as falsely promoted by few. Shiva Maheshwara has always existed before that. Shiva, Maheshwara SadaShiva is Adi-Anadi. One without a beginning or an end. One of the thousand names of Shiva is also Krishna.

There is no question of "material" body here.

A 'material' body is considered made up of five elements. One that is shed away, because it is temporary. Shiva - the wielder of maya n mool prakriti is not and cannot be restricted to these five elements. The Vedas have not stated so, nor have the Vedic pundits. He annihilates the material worlds made of these five elements. If his own body and nature was confined to the same, he wouldn't have the overriding power over these elements. He is also beyond the three Gunas. Shiva himself says he creates these gunas but is not affected by them and is beyond them.

But its true if you worship the Krsna tattva, you go to his abode (if successful finally) and attain the 'service' of his particular swarupa often known as 'Sayujya Mukti'.

Regards,

Yogkriya

[Guest guest]

 

Yes. n it depends on ur attachment and belief as to what versus u chose n like. Then one can find whatever arguments for backing up vedantically with quotes and ellaborate argumentative logic in favor of his stance. For example, members of the Hare Krsna movement love to believe only that Vishnu is Krsna's expansion and not vice-versa. Since they see Krsna as beginning, so naturally everything is emanating from him, is his "expansion", extension, efulgence, etc.. Fine. Good to believe this. Krsna and Vishnu are the same after all in their basic element. There is functionary difference. Milk-Yogurt? But same Lacto! Its the same Narayana-Vishnu tatva. Of course we have more definitions. Bheda-bhed philosophy has made way too many differenciations. I think its not always too beneficial to keep meditating on these demarcations. Takes away the charm of bhakti making it way too technical. Narayana as Krsna in BG says -He is the origin of everything. Krsna said or Vishnu/Narayana? Doesn't matter much really.

But still there is ellaborate description of Krsna's birth, not Vishnu's. Or I would say Narayana born as Krsna. There is no description of Shiva's "birth" however. Rudra's appearance out of Brahma is not Shiva's birth as falsely promoted by few. Shiva Maheshwara has always existed before that. Shiva, Maheshwara SadaShiva is Adi-Anadi. One without a beginning or an end. One of the thousand names of Shiva is also Krishna.

There is no question of "material" body here.

A 'material' body is considered made up of five elements. One that is shed away, because it is temporary. Shiva - the wielder of maya n mool prakriti is not and cannot be restricted to these five elements. The Vedas have not stated so, nor have the Vedic pundits. He annihilates the material worlds made of these five elements. If his own body and nature was confined to the same, he wouldn't have the overriding power over these elements. He is also beyond the three Gunas. Shiva himself says he creates these gunas but is not affected by them and is beyond them.

But its true if you worship the Krsna tattva, you go to his abode (if successful finally) and attain the 'service' of his particular swarupa often known as 'Sayujya Mukti'.

Regards,

Yogkriya

 

"Narayana as Krsna in BG... "

 

everyone read that in BG, i am sure.

[Guest guest]

 

"Narayana as Krsna in BG... "

everyone read that in BG, i am sure.

 

Yes and what everyone read and understood are two different things. When Krsna says in BG that I am OM, why don't you meditate on OM? Btw, most Vedic sadhna mantras start with Om.

Everything that dares dis-align a little from your own somewhat theories automatically becomes "wild" and distorted in your perspective!! Anyways there are a lots of things that krsna said that people never follow. There are fundamental differences in what Krsna taught to Arjuna and what .. say acharyas like Prabhupada gave to the mlecchas. He did a great job though and did what was appropriate for his time. And the first fundamental difference is in the sadhnatmak approach between 'Vedic' sadhna paddhati and sankirtana sadhna paddhati. Not that the later is wrong, but its different than that given in Krsna's time. So what's the use in arguing. Now you will bring up more arguments with quotes, lecture-baji etc. Usual thing. Anyways, I've been more interested in Bhagwad Gita 'as it was' rather than 'as it is' now. In any case, if you think Krsna is not Narayan and that it is a wild assumption, you can keep on worshipping Krsna with Gopi swarupa and get the benefit nevertheless!! I hardly see any conflict!!

Theories are theories. What's practical is a little more important. And the practical aspect of a sadhak is where he is standing right now and how he can reach his goal and what he is doing to achieve that. Simple. Rest of the vedantic flowery argumentation of who is where n who is higher lower is fruitless really digging up ever wider trenches between sects sampradayas.

You saw one sentence that pricked your consciousness and u poked it back at me with ridicule. But did you see anything good in what I wrote as well? If you are out seeing only bad and judging people and theories, then how far do you intend going in your spiritual life? Anyways, I'm not the judge. Nor should I be the judged. I only at times detest the judgmental attitude of my dear bhaktas towards other lines and methods of worship. Wish you don't see the wildness n ridicule in love for the divine in others and start seeing love and brotherhood in the wild too.

 

Love and Regards,

Yogkriya.

[Guest guest]

 

That's fine. Then there are bunch of contradictory verses which goes against that belief. So original/non-original is the question.

By the way, its easy to do these so called "original posts". open up Vedabase or other scriptural library on the net - read related versus - ctrl+c - ctrl+v -

copy - paste - n there you go with your original versus, ridicule just another bhakta and so it keeps going on and on.

[Guest guest]

 

Yes and what everyone read and understood are two different things. When Krsna says in BG that I am OM, why don't you meditate on OM? Btw, most Vedic sadhna mantras start with Om.

Everything that dares dis-align a little from your own somewhat theories automatically becomes "wild" and distorted in your perspective!! Anyways there are a lots of things that krsna said that people never follow. There are fundamental differences in what Krsna taught to Arjuna and what .. say acharyas like Prabhupada gave to the mlecchas. He did a great job though and did what was appropriate for his time. And the first fundamental difference is in the sadhnatmak approach between 'Vedic' sadhna paddhati and sankirtana sadhna paddhati. Not that the later is wrong, but its different than that given in Krsna's time. So what's the use in arguing. Now you will bring up more arguments with quotes, lecture-baji etc. Usual thing. Anyways, I've been more interested in Bhagwad Gita 'as it was' rather than 'as it is' now. In any case, if you think Krsna is not Narayan and that it is a wild assumption, you can keep on worshipping Krsna with Gopi swarupa and get the benefit nevertheless!! I hardly see any conflict!!

Theories are theories. What's practical is a little more important. And the practical aspect of a sadhak is where he is standing right now and how he can reach his goal and what he is doing to achieve that. Simple. Rest of the vedantic flowery argumentation of who is where n who is higher lower is fruitless really digging up ever wider trenches between sects sampradayas.

You saw one sentence that pricked your consciousness and u poked it back at me with ridicule. But did you see anything good in what I wrote as well? If you are out seeing only bad and judging people and theories, then how far do you intend going in your spiritual life? Anyways, I'm not the judge. Nor should I be the judged. I only at times detest the judgmental attitude of my dear bhaktas towards other lines and methods of worship. Wish you don't see the wildness n ridicule in love for the divine in others and start seeing love and brotherhood in the wild too.

 

Love and Regards,

Yogkriya.

 

You arrogantly imply my belief is wrong and your is right and then offer the topic your status-quo cheap evidence w/o answering basic counter-arguments. Really, I think your comments in your post apply to you.

 

However, I do share a common hidden point with you...evangelizers should not preach their God & Goddess as superior to the mass public when it is not publicly accepted by the mass of a religion because this is a breach of proper etiquette. It is arrogant to do so and may offend a devotee with a different ista-deva.

[Guest guest]

 

Yes and what everyone read and understood are two different things. When Krsna says in BG that I am OM, why don't you meditate on OM? Btw, most Vedic sadhna mantras start with Om.

Everything that dares dis-align a little from your own somewhat theories automatically becomes "wild" and distorted in your perspective!! Anyways there are a lots of things that krsna said that people never follow. There are fundamental differences in what Krsna taught to Arjuna and what .. say acharyas like Prabhupada gave to the mlecchas. He did a great job though and did what was appropriate for his time. And the first fundamental difference is in the sadhnatmak approach between 'Vedic' sadhna paddhati and sankirtana sadhna paddhati. Not that the later is wrong, but its different than that given in Krsna's time. So what's the use in arguing. Now you will bring up more arguments with quotes, lecture-baji etc. Usual thing. Anyways, I've been more interested in Bhagwad Gita 'as it was' rather than 'as it is' now. In any case, if you think Krsna is not Narayan and that it is a wild assumption, you can keep on worshipping Krsna with Gopi swarupa and get the benefit nevertheless!! I hardly see any conflict!!

Theories are theories. What's practical is a little more important. And the practical aspect of a sadhak is where he is standing right now and how he can reach his goal and what he is doing to achieve that. Simple. Rest of the vedantic flowery argumentation of who is where n who is higher lower is fruitless really digging up ever wider trenches between sects sampradayas.

You saw one sentence that pricked your consciousness and u poked it back at me with ridicule. But did you see anything good in what I wrote as well? If you are out seeing only bad and judging people and theories, then how far do you intend going in your spiritual life? Anyways, I'm not the judge. Nor should I be the judged. I only at times detest the judgmental attitude of my dear bhaktas towards other lines and methods of worship. Wish you don't see the wildness n ridicule in love for the divine in others and start seeing love and brotherhood in the wild too.

 

Love and Regards,

Yogkriya.

 

"When Krsna says in BG that I am OM, why don't you meditate on OM? Btw, most Vedic sadhna mantras start with Om."

 

Alright, then why don't you enlighten me by informing how do I realize a 2 syllable word. I have realized mantras with god's names in them. However, I do not know of any god named OM except a bunch of mantras use OM but none just OM itself. Does it give as much as peace as god's names?

[Guest guest]

 

You arrogantly imply my belief is wrong and your is right and then offer the topic your status-quo cheap evidence w/o answering basic counter-arguments. Really, I think your comments in your post apply to you.

 

However, I do share a common hidden point with you...evangelizers should not preach their God & Goddess as superior to the mass public when it is not publicly accepted by the mass of a religion because this is a breach of proper etiquette. It is arrogant to do so and may offend a devotee with a different ista-deva.

 

Dear Guest, if you comprehended my answer to ur putting thumb downs as exactly "arrogant" then I'm sorry. I'm not from the argument - counter - argument pursuing class of devotees really. You have a right to your opinion. Thanks.

[Guest guest]

 

"When Krsna says in BG that I am OM, why don't you meditate on OM? Btw, most Vedic sadhna mantras start with Om."

 

Alright, then why don't you enlighten me by informing how do I realize a 2 syllable word. I have realized mantras with god's names in them. However, I do not know of any god named OM except a bunch of mantras use OM but none just OM itself. Does it give as much as peace as god's names?

 

hmm... Again, I sense disbelief n ridicule. If you want to approach someone for enlightenment with an aim to ridicule him, you ain't getting much in return. You can forget altogether 'Om'. I'm not gaining or loosing anything from it dear Guest. If you follow Prabhupada, then realizing Om sadhna may not be the right path for you cuz you may ridicule everything else apart from Hare Krsna mantra. Or you may not?! Even though Krsna himself says the glory of Om and recognizing his own self as OM in BG. He says he is Om in the mantras, in the sound. Om is Brahm naad heard only in deepest meditation. Anyways, in terms of philosophy, its closer to advaita siddhanta rather. Shakti is beej swarupa. You think a two syllable mantra has no power than a two sentence mantra? A mantra's power is not judged by its length. If that is a mantra judging criteria, then its dead wrong! There are one syllable mantras that work as efficiently as a one page mantra. But this is the science of mantra and tantra. And then you will have to go into shakti Vidyas. 'Ram' is not too different. Ram naam liberated saint Kabir. Again, I see no conflicts here.

Regards,

 

Yogkriya