Gaudiya Vaishnava Conception of Shiva

[ranjeetmore]

Raghuji,

 

Your questions are difficult to answer since they appear so tiring.

 

I can't really explain how i feel or what i believe.

 

For Gaudiyas,Brahm sanghita is a high class text and if it is coupled with the vayu purana revelation

(sadashiva resides in Vaikuntha),we obtain the knowledge of sadashiva tattva.

 

Whereas to the Lord Shiva in the material world,I am at a loss to explain.frankly.

 

 

***

 

As to your belief that the tamo guna scriptures are to be completely rejected....Shiva himself states in these scriptures that the revelations which conform with the vaishnava scriptures are to be accepted.

 

That's why we reject that Sri Visnu ever gouged His eye to please shankara but on the other hand we accept from the Devi bhagavatam that Sri Radhika is the Supreme Primordial energy.

 

***

 

Believe it or not,the maharasiks have unanimously proclaimed that Brahma Visnu Mahesa all are searching for Sri KRsnaananda.

 

So also,Tulsidas also states that Brahma,Visnu and Mahesvara all serve Sri Ramacandra.

 

The same tulsidasa however has established the clear nondifference between Visnu and Sri Ramacandra by calling Them Both Hari.

 

So for the Rama bhaktas and the Krsna Bhaktas,the Supreme Brahm mentioned in the vedas Who expands as the three deities of Brahma,Visnu and Shankara is Sri KRsna or Sri Rama.

 

These are very delicate topics and one should not think that Sri Visnu is a servant of Sri Krsna in the menial sense.

 

Servant means...He(Sri visnu) is fully aware of the position of Bhagavan Sri Krsna.

[ranjeetmore]

this is making me mad.

 

I quit.

 

Sri Krsna is svayam Bhagavan for the gaudiyas and I'll just hold on to that...

 

Radhe Radhe.

[kaisersose]

 

this is making me mad.

 

Spiritually mad or materialistically mad?

 

 

Sri Krsna is svayam Bhagavan for the gaudiyas and I'll just hold on to that...

 

Radhe Radhe.

 

But this is about Shiva and not Krishna. Since the Gaudiyas on this thread themselves cannot agree on the topic, the most likely possiblity is, the concept is not clearly defined in any Gaudiya source. But is that a problem?

 

The reason is, Shiva is not really necessary in a Vashnava doctrine, just like Vishnu/Krishna is redundant in a non-Vaishnava doctrine. Lip service paid to non-doctrinal Gods is usually for political reasons - like a section of Gaudiyas trying to factor in Jesus.

 

Not all Vaishnava doctrines have the same definition of Krishna. Why should they be expected to have a common definition of Shiva?

 

Cheers

[Sonic Yogi]

 

Spiritually mad or materialistically mad?

 

 

 

But this is about Shiva and not Krishna. Since the Gaudiyas on this thread themselves cannot agree on the topic, the most likely possiblity is, the concept is not clearly defined in any Gaudiya source. But is that a problem?

 

The reason is, Shiva is not really necessary in a Vashnava doctrine, just like Vishnu/Krishna is redundant in a non-Vaishnava doctrine. Lip service paid to non-doctrinal Gods is usually for political reasons - like a section of Gaudiyas trying to factor in Jesus.

 

Not all Vaishnava doctrines have the same definition of Krishna. Why should they be expected to have a common definition of Shiva?

 

Cheers

 

Srila Sridhar Maharaja has said that Siva-tattva is beyond our understanding.

Siva-tattva is very mysterious, but I like Srila Prabhupada's version that Siva is simultaneously Vishnu and jiva and that is why Siva-tattva is so difficult to grasp.

 

Siva doesn't fit into Vishnu-tattva or jiva tattva.

He is simultaneously God and jiva.

That is something that is hard to get your mind around, unless and until you understand the concept of shaktyavesha avatar and how Vishnu can enter into a jiva and give that jiva Godly powers.

 

Nothing is impossible for Vishnu.

If Vishnu wants to make a jiva into Vishnu-tattva, he can certainly do so.

 

He can also make a jiva into a combination of jiva and Vishnu-tattva as is the case with Lord Siva.

[hindustani]

Whole thread is full of confusion and its pitty to see people's thoughts on Shri Vishnu by comparing him with Shri Krishna,I was fed up of comparison of God Shiva but now a new comparison has started.My honest belief from all such posts is--those who compare different forms of God they themselves look confused by asking such queries again and again,first Shri Shivji and Now Maha Vishnu.

Boys aren't you setisfied by your own worship?Why?You chaps need some self analysis imo.

[Sonic Yogi]

 

Whole thread is full of confusion and its pitty to see people's thoughts on Shri Vishnu by comparing him with Shri Krishna,I was fed up of comparison of God Shiva but now a new comparison has started.My honest belief from all such posts is--those who compare different forms of God they themselves look confused by asking such queries again and again,first Shri Shivji and Now Maha Vishnu.

Boys aren't you setisfied by your own worship?Why?You chaps need some self analysis imo.

You sound awfully angry that everybody else doesn't think just like you.

Is it really that hard for you to accept that not everybody is going to believe in the same things you believe in?

 

Everything has gradation.

Their are gradations in the gods and there is gradation in the forms of God.

Krishna has more qualities than Vishnu, Vishnu has more qualities than Siva, Siva has more qualities than Brahma, Brahma is superior to Indra etc.etc.

The shastra is full of such comparative gradation.

 

If you don't like gradation ,then you surely won't like shastra.

 

It appears that you to the monist idea that everyone is all ONE and the same and there is no such thing as spiritual gradation.

[raghu]

 

You sound awfully angry that everybody else doesn't think just like you.

Is it really that hard for you to accept that not everybody is going to believe in the same things you believe in?

Did anyone find this as funny as I did, coming as it does from Sonic Yogi?

 

 

Everything has gradation.

Their are gradations in the gods and there is gradation in the forms of God.

Krishna has more qualities than Vishnu, Vishnu has more qualities than Siva, Siva has more qualities than Brahma, Brahma is superior to Indra etc.etc.

The shastra is full of such comparative gradation.

 

If you don't like gradation ,then you surely won't like shastra.

The idea that "Krishna has more qualities than Vishnu" has no basis in shastra, at least, not in any conventional definition of the term "shastra." If you want to invoke shastra to silence an opponent, you should also acknowledge shastra when someone points out the lack of evidence therein which substantiates your views. Or maybe not I suppose. I guess some people see nothing wrong with the idea of "one standard for you, a different standard for me"

 

 

Srila Sridhar Maharaja has said that Siva-tattva is beyond our understanding.

Siva-tattva is very mysterious, but I like Srila Prabhupada's version that Siva is simultaneously Vishnu and jiva and that is why Siva-tattva is so difficult to grasp.

What a tricky position to take. On one hand the Gaudiyas try to explain Siva's position in their books, and yet when this is scrutinized for its inconsistency they retreat into the "it's very mysterious" position. Using that tack, you can justify almost anything, which is why mayavadis and Neo-Vedantins are also fond of that pseudo-logic.

 

 

Siva doesn't fit into Vishnu-tattva or jiva tattva.

He is simultaneously God and jiva.

This is meaningless bunk. The problem is that you cannot or will not commit to any position about his identity.

 

 

That is something that is hard to get your mind around, unless and until you understand the concept of shaktyavesha avatar and how Vishnu can enter into a jiva and give that jiva Godly powers.

The very idea of A entering B implies that A is different from B. B does not become A because A entered B.

 

Does your house become you when you enter it?

 

 

Nothing is impossible for Vishnu.

If Vishnu wants to make a jiva into Vishnu-tattva, he can certainly do so.

 

He can also make a jiva into a combination of jiva and Vishnu-tattva as is the case with Lord Siva.

100% speculation. The real question is, is that what has happened here? Merely suggesting that it could have happened is not by itself evidence of anything.

 

 

Your questions are difficult to answer since... (deleted)

 

I can't really explain how i feel or what i believe.

That is my point - read these two sentences together as if they were one sentence, then think about it for a moment and see if you have figured out the problem.

 

 

For Gaudiyas,Brahm sanghita is a high class text and if it is coupled with the vayu purana revelation

(sadashiva resides in Vaikuntha),we obtain the knowledge of sadashiva tattva.

It makes little sense to argue for the validity of something by quoting from obscure scriptures that no one else accepts.

 

 

Whereas to the Lord Shiva in the material world,I am at a loss to explain.frankly.

That is because the views you espouse on this point are incorrect.

 

 

As to your belief that the tamo guna scriptures are to be completely rejected....Shiva himself states in these scriptures that the revelations which conform with the vaishnava scriptures are to be accepted.

And this was not my position at all. As far as I am concerned, I agree with the Vaishnava Vedantin point of view that the smritis are acceptable to the extent that they are consistent with shruti.

 

 

Believe it or not,the maharasiks have unanimously proclaimed that Brahma Visnu Mahesa all are searching for Sri KRsnaananda.

And of course, the source of this is your fertile imagination, correct?

 

 

So also,Tulsidas also states that Brahma,Visnu and Mahesvara all serve Sri Ramacandra.

So now Tulsidas is shastra?

 

 

The same tulsidasa however has established the clear nondifference between Visnu and Sri Ramacandra by calling Them Both Hari.

ipse dixit logic - "This is true because he said it."

 

 

These are very delicate topics and one should not think that Sri Visnu is a servant of Sri Krsna in the menial sense.

 

Servant means...He(Sri visnu) is fully aware of the position of Bhagavan Sri Krsna.

In other words, you are now redefining the word "servant" just to make it fit with your views. Just as Sonic Yogi et. al. redefine "shastra" to make true their view that their ideas are based on "shastra." And similarly "Vedic,brahmin," etc... is there no end to the linguistic revisionism?

 

The basic problem with your views is that you are trying to establish something that is inherently illogical and incorrect, i.e. the idea that Shiva is both jiva and Vishnu, and yet neither in some other sense. Your philosophy is neither clear nor consistent, and that may be why intelligent people often abandon it when asking the kinds of probing questions which I just did.

 

By embracing your logic, one can just as easily embrace mayavada. Many mayavadis also say that jiva is God, and yet not God, and yet he is God... etc and this is very difficult to understand but you must just accept it. Because they say so.

[hindustani]

Shashtra servent and sonic really matches.Most of what I wanted to say has been said by Raghuji in his post.You are nothing but a soul desparate to find your ways and I pray God that one day he will fullfill your request.You are doing as per your karmas and no one can stop you but one day you will realise what you are doing is wrong. I am NOT here to make any personal comments OR I don't have that skill what you chaps are having!Those who read comparisons easily understands your mindset so don't worry,confusion will clear one day and pray to God that same day come fast in your life.

 

everyone is all ONE and the same

If I belive like you said,my journey to this world shall call it a fruitful one.

[hindustani]

Maha wrong statement this is,forget money and status and now differ people and make your gradation,you have 2 eyes same like me and I hv 2 hands same like you,any difference?Difference is in our sence,our acceptance,our inputs and outputs.Rest all is nothing but Maya so try to control maya and your vision will become clearer.

 

Everything has gradation.

[sant]

 

The idea that "Krishna has more qualities than Vishnu" has no basis in shastra, at least, not in any conventional definition of the term "shastra." If you want to invoke shastra to silence an opponent, you should also acknowledge shastra when someone points out the lack of evidence therein which substantiates your views. Or maybe not I suppose. I guess some people see nothing wrong with the idea of "one standard for you, a different standard for me"

 

 

Devi bhagwatam

-34. Nârâyana said:-- “O Devarsi! The egg (born of Mûla Prakriti) that was floating in the waters for a period equal to the life period of Brahmâ, now in the fullness of time separated into two parts. Within that egg there was a powerful Child, lustrous like one thousand millions of suns. This child could not suck mother’s milk, as it was forsaken by Her. So being tired of hunger, the child for a moment cried repeatedly. The child that will become the Lord of countless Brahmândas (universes), now an orphan having no father nor mother began to look upwards from the waters. This boy came to be denominated afterwards by the name of Mahâ Virât, when he became gross and grosser. As there is nothing finer than radium so there is nothing grosser than Mahâ Virât. The power of this Mahâ Virât is one-sixteenth of that of S’ri Krisna, the Highest Self. But this boy, (born of the Prakriti Râdhâ) is the Sole Stay of all this Universe and he is denominated by the name “Mahâ-Visnu”. In his every pore countless universes are existing. So much so that even S’ri Krisna could not count them. If it were possible to count the number of dust particles, it is impossible to count the number of universes. So there are endless Brahmâs, Visnus, and Mahes’varas. In every Brahmânda, there is Brahmâ, Visnu, and Mahes’a. Each Brahmânda extends from Pâtâla to the Brahmâloka. The abode of Vaikuntha is higher than that (i. e. it is situated outside of Brahmânda), again the abode of Goloka is fifty koti yojanas (50 x 10 x 4 x 2 million miles) higher than Vaikuntha. This Goloka Dhâma is eternal and real as S’ri Krisna is eternal and real

 

Sri krisna is golokinath the highest spiritual planet that is why he is supreme.

Maha vishnu,narayana is the lord of everything he is non different from krishna.

 

whatt is your query please tell i dont understand

[sant]

 

It makes little sense to argue for the validity of something by quoting from obscure scriptures that no one else accepts.

Whats the condition according to you to beleive or not to beleive in a scripture.

[sant]

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sonic Yogi

You sound awfully angry that everybody else doesn't think just like you.

Is it really that hard for you to accept that not everybody is going to believe in the same things you believe in?

 

 

Did anyone find this as funny as I did, coming as it does from Sonic Yogi?

 

No Dont compare him with others.

 

Quote:

So also,Tulsidas also states that Brahma,Visnu and Mahesvara all serve Sri Ramacandra.

 

So now Tulsidas is shastra?

 

the tulsidas is not shastra but his ramayan is loved by people all over.

It is based on the adhyaatman ramayan.

 

 

 

Quote:

That is something that is hard to get your mind around, unless and until you understand the concept of shaktyavesha avatar and how Vishnu can enter into a jiva and give that jiva Godly powers.

 

The very idea of A entering B implies that A is different from B. B does not become A because A entered B.

 

Does your house become you when you enter it?

God and his ways are beyond our understanding.It is out of our logic mind.

Our logic is based upon the amount of knowledge we have.

[sant]

 

You are nothing but a soul

 

 

have 2 eyes same like me and I hv 2 hands same like you,any difference?

 

These two lines are contradicting.

 

 

 

Rest all is nothing but Maya so try to control maya and your vision will become clearer.

 

If your vision is right then why are you seeing even talking whats the difference between you and him .everything is the soul .why are you talking also then ,why do you want to talk to maya.

Jai shri radha shyam

[hindustani]

Correct line is

 

You are nothing but a soul desparate to find your ways

Santji I wish you do not jump in between,he said something so I am replying him and I am quite capable to defend myself thanks for your efforts!

[sant]

 

Santji I wish you do not jump in between,he said something so I am replying him and I am quite capable to defend myself thanks for your efforts!

 

ok im sorry

[bhaktajan]

Quote:

But if Shiva is truly non-different from Vishnu as per your view, then you should have no problem with someone worshipping Shiva for liberation, thinking Shiva to be the "Supreme Personality of Godhead."

 

I dont have a problem With people worshipping shiva for liberation.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

I am a Vaishnava [or at least a servant of scores of them] and I know Shiva to be the Highest Vaishnava ---WHAT LIBERATION ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? Void!??

 

WHAT LIBERATION TO SHIVITES TALK ABOUT?

 

HOW MANY TYPES OF LIBERATION IS THERE? ---[other than the one I know of]

[sant]

 

LIBERATION ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? Void!??

 

 

Yes

 

 

WHAT LIBERATION TO SHIVITES TALK ABOUT?

 

 

I think merging,

then living with shiva in kaialsh(im not sure of this),

And i heard brahma kumaris say that they go to param dham.( brahma kumaris are raj yogis)

[bhaktajan]

 

Sonic Yogi Siva doesn't fit into Vishnu-tattva or jiva tattva.

He is simultaneously God and jiva.

 

raghu:

This is meaningless bunk. The problem is that you cannot or will not commit to any position about his identity.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

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

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

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

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

[ranjeetmore]

raghu,

 

you go on and on about how there is no sastra that supports Sri Krsna's position.

 

I'll tell you exactly what is told to the mayavadis,

 

"Srimad Bhagavatam is the commentary of Srila Vedvyasa Himself on the vedanta."

 

 

 

And talking about maharasiks......like the gosvamis' position on the position of Sri Krsna and that of Sri Visnu is NOT MY FERTILE IMAGINATION.

 

It is given in their works.One of the Gosvamis has provided a perfect scholaRLY exposition on WHY BALARAMA AND SRI KRSNA CANNOT BE INCARNATIONS THAT EMERGE FROM ONE WHITE HAIR AND ONE BLACK HAIR OF SRI VISNU respectively or rather WHY THE VERSE WHICH SAYS SO IS INTERPRETATED WRONGLY.

 

That was perhaps the only statement of the vaishnava scriptures that SEEMED not to conform with the position of Sri Krsna as extolled in the bhagavatam.

[Sonic Yogi]

Fact is, Shaivites don't know what they believe.

Among different Shaiva school there is advaita, dvaita and bheda abheda.

Shaiva gurus mix and blend any and every siddhanta they need to for the sake of keeping up with the Vaishnava siddhanta that has exposed the miserable advaita siddhanta of Sunyavada Nirvishesa siddhi.

[raghu]

 

raghu,

 

you go on and on about how there is no sastra that supports Sri Krsna's position.

 

 

No, I go on and on about how there is no shastra which supports *your* position. Sri Krishna's views I have no problem with.

 

 

I'll tell you exactly what is told to the mayavadis,

 

"Srimad Bhagavatam is the commentary of Srila Vedvyasa Himself on the vedanta."

 

 

I'm sure at some point you will explain to me (a) the objective criteria but which the above position is deemed true and (b) how it relates to anything we have been discussing here.

 

 

And talking about maharasiks......like the gosvamis' position on the position of Sri Krsna and that of Sri Visnu is NOT MY FERTILE IMAGINATION.

 

So in other words, forget shastra. The gosvamis said it. And that is good enough, right?

 

So in that case why make a hue and cry about "shastra?" Why not just admit that there is no shastric basis for your views, and that you are just following your gosvamis.

 

 

It is given in their works.One of the Gosvamis has provided a perfect scholaRLY exposition on WHY BALARAMA AND SRI KRSNA CANNOT BE INCARNATIONS THAT EMERGE FROM ONE WHITE HAIR AND ONE BLACK HAIR OF SRI VISNU respectively or rather WHY THE VERSE WHICH SAYS SO IS INTERPRETATED WRONGLY.

 

That was perhaps the only statement of the vaishnava scriptures that SEEMED not to conform with the position of Sri Krsna as extolled in the bhagavatam.

 

What does this have to do with anything? Were you asleep when you read the earlier messages of this thread?

[raghu]

 

Fact is, Shaivites don't know what they believe.

 

Neither do Gaudiyas, apparently. All of you have already verbalized different and inconsistent views about Shiva.

 

 

Among different Shaiva school there is advaita, dvaita and bheda abheda.

 

Are you suggesting that that we do not have variety of schools in Vaishnavism?

 

 

Shaiva gurus mix and blend any and every siddhanta they need to

 

Hypocrisy. Gaudiya Vaishnava gurus mix and blend any and every siddhanta they need to, as evidenced by views like "Jesus is a pure devotee" and "Mohammed is a shaktyavesha avatar." You obviously have no problem with that. It's only when someone else does it that you complain.

 

 

for the sake of keeping up with the Vaishnava siddhanta that has exposed the miserable advaita siddhanta of Sunyavada Nirvishesa siddhi.

 

None of which answers the question of "What is the Gaudiya position regarding Shiva?" Why the harangue against Shaivism? Isn't it simply the fact that when you are unable to articulate your views clearly, you just have to transform the thread into an attack on mayavada, shaivism, etc? I don't see the need for this sort of diversionary tactic.

[hindustani]

Don't worry Raghu and leave all this to God,such miseries is expected from a soul who is lost in this material world.I sincerely Wish Shri Krishna will show him reality one day if he is a real devotee of Shri Krishna although he looks busy attacking other ways of Worshiping God which in my opinion Shri Krishna never spoke of/advised.

 

None of which answers the question of "What is the Gaudiya position regarding Shiva?" Why the harangue against Shaivism? Isn't it simply the fact that when you are unable to articulate your views clearly, you just have to transform the thread into an attack on mayavada, shaivism, etc? I don't see the need for this sort of diversionary tactic.

 

[Harihar]

Dear Raghu,

 

I know you belong to Sri Vaishnava. I want you to throw some light on this particular subject.

[sambya]

 

Dear Raghu,

 

I know you belong to Sri Vaishnava.

 

does he ? thought so !!